More Potential Evidence of Voter Fraud - In Oklahoma?

I'd like you to pull up two links:

Tulsa World Election 2004 Coverage

Towards the middle of the page on the left hand side, you'll see a county-by-county breakdown of the election results in Oklahoma. These results are listed as unofficial, and supposedly are a snapshot of the vote count after 70% of the votes had been counted.

Now, pull up the CNN Election Results for Oklahoma after 100% of the precincts had reported:

CNN Oklahoma Election Results

There are some huge discrepancies between these two result sets. You'd think that after adding the final 30% of the election results, both candidate's total vote count would increase in each county. This is simply not the case. In 57 different counties, Bush's vote count went up substantially, while Kerry's vote count dropped substantially.

Here are just a few examples I pulled at random:

Adair:

Tulsa (70% Complete) - 2,137 GB, 3,704 JK
CNN (100% Complete) - 4,971 GB, 2,560 JK

(Bush Gained 2,834 new votes, while Kerry lost 1,144 Votes)

Canadian:

Tulsa (70% Complete) - 16,380 GB, 11,518 JK
CNN (100% Complete) - 33,297 GB, 9,712 JK

Bush Gained 16,917 new votes, while Kerry lost 1,806 Votes)

Pontotoc:

Tulsa (70% Complete) - 3,949 GB, 6,249 JK
CNN (100% Complete) - 9,647 GB, 5,165 JK

(Bush Gained 5,698 new votes, while Kerry lost 1,084 Votes)

Wagoner

Tulsa (70% Complete) - 10,072 GB, 8,081 JK
CNN (100% Complete) - 19,081 GB, 9,157 JK

(Bush Gained 9,009 new votes, while Kerry gained just 1,076 Votes)

The overwhelming trend was that in every small rural county, Bush gained thousands of new votes, while the vote count for Kerry actually decreased. I am at a complete loss as to how these numbers can be explained -- outside of a vast right-wing conspiracy to commit voter fraud. Perhaps this is an honest mistake -- perhaps the numbers published by Tulsa World were all overwhelming incorrect. Is is possible? sure. Unlikely? yes. It now seems to me that we have credible evidence of a massive electoral fraud scandal.

If you were trying to pull off a voter fraud scheme, don't you think you would concentrate on spreading the fraud over a large number of small, rural counties, so that no individual county looks way out of wack. It appears that this was what they tried pulling off. They probably thought they could get away with it too -- who would bother to second guess a victory for Bush in Oklahoma.

The votes for the 57 counties in question where Kerry lost votes were all conducted on ES&S Optech Machines. In total, Kerry lost 37,982 Votes, while Bush gained a whopping 393,825 votes.

So -- what happens next? Should there be a call to recount Oklahoma. The state presidential race was decided by over 450,000 votes, so it appears unlikely that Kerry would win the state by any imagined scenario.

The evidence is alarming. The silence by the media while evidence has mounted pointing to voting irregularities has been almost unbearable. It is laughable to me when I here cried of a liberal media bias. Where is this so-called liberal media when we need them? The only vocal critic of the electoral process heard in the mainstream media has been Keith Olbermann of MSNBC. For his courage, we see ridicule by the media, such as an article entitled Keith Olbermann's Dan Rather Moment. I am outraged by the silence in the mass media. They have completely failed us.

While I am at it, I would also like to outrage over the medias handling of the entire Dan Rather/Rathergate Fiasco. Bush brought us to war on false pretenses, sending thousands of troops in harm's way, without a reasonable explanation. Evidence, such as the 9/11 commission report, has come out to show that the justifications provided for the war were a complete sham. Bush himself was a complete coward in his own youth. He used his relationship with his father to avoid duty in Vietnam, instead taking a position with the Texas Air National Guard. The problem is that the papers that should show Bush's record with the National Guard are missing. Should this not be a major cause for concern? What do you have to hide, Mr. Bush?

The mass media has given the Bush Administration a free ride for far too long. There is no liberal media to speak of. Any time somebody like Dan Rather or Keith Olbermann tries to step out and make a public statement, the mass media is all over the story, ridiculing the so-called liberal media every step of the way.

This behavior has got to stop. There is credible evidence that some things may have gone afoul during the presidential election. This is a message to the mass media--It is time to stick out your neck, and demonstrate some journalistic integrity and tenacity. There are several stories worth investigating:

• Why have I not heard anything more about the story in Volusia county, where it appeared that Bev Harris of Black Box Voting had uncovered an attempt to dispose of the official paper trail. From the initial stories coming out, it appeared that this entire ordeal was caught on camera, and that proof of voter fraud was found. This story should be a national headline by now. Instead it appears that it has been dusted into the corner to be forgotten until it is too late
• Somebody should jump all over this story in Oklahoma. Start by contacting the Tulsa World to find out where they received the initial results published in the 11/03/2004 paper. Somebody needs to provide a real answer for these discrepancies
• The Ohio Recount - Start it already. Get James Blackwell out of there. Does anybody not see the conflict of interest in having the chair of the George W. Bush Election Commitee also running the election in Ohio? What about Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell, quoted in the Fall of 2003 as saying: "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president."
• Transparent Voting, Open Source Technology, and a Paper Trail -- Did we not learn enough from the 2000 Florida Election? When will we learn our lesson? A national call for a transparent open source electoral process is needed. I have heard cries for running the entire election as a paper-based vote, but it appears that our nation is far too impatient to wait for the results from such an election. The next best solution is a single solution developed by an open source consortium. Get the universities involved in this.
• Several studies have demonstrated massive statistical abnormalities in the voting results. These studies have already led to a recount in certain counties and precincts within New Hampshire. Way to go Ralph Nader! The most famous of these is a UC Berkeley study which has found that the electoral results in several major democratic counties in Florida are completely unbelievable. The study finds that there is only a 1 in a 1000 chance that the abnormalities found could be attributable to chance. In other words, the results were tampered with.
  

In conclusion, I'd just like to state that I am extremely disappointed in the media. The evidence is there -- where is your journalistic integrity? I don't have the resources to send a team of journalists and fact checkers to chase down each of these major stories to verify the information involved -- YOU DO! Sure, it is much easier to sit down here and right a blog entry about these stories than it is to publish a journalistic piece for all the world to see. I understand the desire to keep your neck and reputation intact, but I don't understand the complete silence on the issues. This silence is completely unacceptable.

The Religious Right, The Bush Administration, Pharisees, and the "Moral Values" Vote

This is probably the last time that I will focus on the "Moral Values" vote in the 2004 Presidential Election. As a lifelong born-again Christian, as well as a angry dissenter of the Bush Administration, this issue has really struck home with me. I simply cannot understand how anybody can justify a vote for president Bush on the basis of "Moral Values".

Before you go arguing that the moral values issue had only a minimal affect on the final election results, I'd like to mention that I have already debunked this claim in a previous blog, entitled Dissecting the Moral Values Vote. According to exit polls, 22% of all voters cited moral values as the primary motivating factor in swinging the direction of their vote. Of these votes, a whopping 78% voted for President Bush. If we eliminate the effect of the moral values vote, Kerry would have won handedly, with a 56.5% - 43.4% margin.

When I listen to the justification of the "Moral Values" vote, I find myself reminded of the group of people referred to as "Pharisees" in biblical times. Jesus himself was a vocal opponent of the Pharisees, disagreeing emphatically over their emphasis on purity laws, and outward appearance, rather than living the life of a Christian. Jesus often spoke of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and Sadducees, rebuking them for their pretentiousness.

To give you an idea of how Jesus viewed those who felt that they were morally superior to others, take a look at the parable of the Pharisee and Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14). The modern-day Christian Right politician is no better than the Pharisee represented in this parable.
Some other Scriptures to Consider:

Luke 11:37-54. Excerpt: "Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and evil....But give to charity what is within, and then everything is clean for you....These things you should have done without neglecting the others"

Luke 7:36-50 Excerpt: She wiped His feet with the hair of her head, kissing them and anointing them with the fragrant oil. 39 When the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he said to himself, "This man, if He were a prophet, would know who and what kind of woman this is who is touching Him--that she's a sinner!"

Time and Time Again, Jesus spoke of living a life of charity - providing for the poor, feeding the hungry, and caring for those in need (i.e. Matthew 19:21, Mark 6:30-44) . He despised the Pharisees, Sadducees and other religious leaders for their self-righteous and judgmental attitudes (Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, John 8:7) This very segment (John 8:1-11) teaches us very clearly that we should not condemn others, but instead focus on our own lives.

Here are is some additional scripture on how Jesus viewed the action of judging others:

Matthew 7:1 - Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Matthew 7:2 - For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Luke 6:37 - Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven

As far as I know, Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. The "True Moral Values" that Jesus taught about are "Peace", "Compassion", "Truethfulness", "Honesty", and "Integrity". These true moral values are certainly not exemplified in the Bush Administration.

Comparing the Moral Values of the Bush Administration to the Moral Values of a Liberal

The Bush Administration is in clear violation of their supposedly moral stance in almost every possible way. Let's take a closer look at the "Moral Values" record of President Bush:

• Declaring an illegitimate war based on false pretences - How can anybody possibly claim that they are basing a vote for President Bush on the issue of morality when the entire justification for the Iraqi War was proven to be false. In what sick and twisted can the declaration of war possibly be considered Moral?
• Peace, Not War - As Kerry stated, the Iraqi War should have been an absolute last resort.
• Providing for the Poor - In this age of economic abundance and overwhelming productivity, it is an absolute atrocity that their are poor, hungry, unemployed, underemployed and uninsured people in the United States. This is a growing problem which is going completely ignored by the Bush Administration. Under Bush's administration, we have seen the loss of over half a million jobs, 1.3 million more people living under the poverty line, 4 million more uninsured people, and the disturbing new trend of outsourcing and offshoring. Compare this to the Clinton Administration, which brought about an increase of 22.5 million jobs.
• Disregard of Environmental Concerns - The Bush Administration has repealed many environmental regulations over their first term in office. They have walked away from the Kyoto protocol, and now they are talking about drilling for oil in the Alaskan Wildlife Preserve. A morally just administration would be more concerned about providing a future for our Children and our Children's Children...not fighting wars and continuing on the short-sited path of continued dependence on finite and limited non-renewable resources. A morally just administration would recognize that the only moral stand on environmental issues would be to appeal to the American people that we cannot continue on a path of over-consumption, non-sustainable economic growth, and environmental devastation.
• Economic Irresponsibility - The republicans like to claim that they stand for a smaller government. You just need to look at one fact to realize that this is simply not true. During the Clinton Administration, we witnessed the Government's first Budget Surplus in almost 30 years. Take a look at this graph. When Clinton left office, we had a record $150 Billion surplus. Now, four years later, the Bush Administration has led us to a record $450 Billion dollar deficit, with no hope of returning to a break even point any time in the near future. A morally responsible administration would realize that spending money we don't have and economically bankrupting the future of the nation is morally reprehensible.
• Deception - Time and Time again, the Bush Administration has been caught lying through their teeth. They lied about the motivation for the Iraqi War. They lied about the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction. They lied about links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. They lied about the uranium yellow cake from Africa. They lied about the aluminum tubes. They continue to deceive about conflicts of interest between the Bush Administration and Halliburton, Diebold, Enron. They lied about the cost of the war. For a closer look at the deception of the Bush Administration, take a look at Bush Administration Lies for War

Voter Fraud Analysis Update

Check it out: http://www.votergate.tv/

There's a 30 minute documentary on the electronic voting equipment used in the election. This is a intro to a full-featured 90 minute documentary they will be releasing in the future.
UC Berkeley held a press conference today, releasing a study that states that Florida's election results are in serious question. The conducted a study performing multiple-regression analysis, and found that the odds of the results they found naturally occurring would be 1 in 1000 elections:

http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/new_web/VOTE2004/election04_WP.pdf

http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/new_web/VOTE2004/election04_Sum.pdf

http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i22berkeley.htm

In North Carolina, they are most likely going to have a statewide re-election for agriculture commissioner. The race is divided by only 2000 votes. Several counties in the state used voting machines that could only record 3000 votes, which caused several thousand votes to be lost. The Vendor of the voting machines is blaming the operators of the machine -- supposedly, the machine had some kind of light on the machine that started blinking when it ran out of room. The election officials originally had a choice between several machine models, with maximum counts of 3,000, 5,000, and 10,000. They chose they 3,000 vote model to save money. Not a good idea...A statewide re-election could cost several million dollars. This story demonstrates gross incompetence on the part of all involved.

First of all -- what kind of unethical company would charge more money to increase the number of votes the machine can tabulate. It's not like there is any extra work involved. A single 32 bit integer could be used to store any integer within the range of 0 to 4.29 billion -- which is enough to the results for any election, short of a worldwide election. A 32 bit integer occupies 4 bytes. My $700 compute, with784 MB of RAM has enough memory to hold 196,000,000 simultaneous national presidential elections, and these people chose to cap their machine at 3,000 votes? What kind of amateurs are these people, and why are we not using a standard, open source platform for all election software?

In other news, Ralph Nader has requested a recount in New Hampshire, due to unexpected inconsistencies in the voting results. A statistical analysis performed by Ida Briggs, a software programmer from Michigan. The major anomalies were found in counties using Diebold voting machines. They will begin by hand-counting 11 counties chosen by Nader and Briggs which demonstrated large scale anomalies.

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65736,00.html

http://www.invisibleida.com/New_Hampshire.htm

David Cobb and Michael Badnarik have raised enough money to conduct a recount in the state of Ohio, which is the one state which could still overturn the results of the presidential election. They raised over $150,000, primarily in $10 and $50 donations.

http://www.votecobb.com

What Might Have Been

If you've been following the goings of the Michigan Wolverines, you may have noticed that two things happened this weekend that greatly increased the Wolverine's championship chances:

A) Michigan handedly won their game against Northwestern, 42-20, to improve to 7-0 in the Big Ten, and 9-1 overall

B) Michigan State soundly defeated previously undefeated Wisconsin, 49-14. With the loss, Wisconsin fell to 6-1 in the Big Ten, and 9-1 overall. Since Michigan didn't play Wisconsin at all this season, they had to hope that either Michigan State or Iowa could beat the badgers, giving the Wolverines sole possession of the big ten lead.

After starting the season slowly, with a 2nd week loss to Notre Dame, Michigan has put together a very impressive 8 game winning streak, including come from behind victories vs. Minnesota, Purdue, and Michigan State. There is an article on ESPN about the Wolverines season:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=1923978.

The article begins with Braylon Edwards wondering "What Might have been". This season has been about the development and emergence of Michael Hart and Chad Henne as freshman sensations in the big ten. If Braylon Edwards was eligible to come back for one more year, or if Hart and Henne had arrived on the scene on year earlier, I think this team would have won the national title. Last season, Michigan made it to the Rose Bowl, but lost to USC, arguably the best team in the nation. This season, Michigan can avenge the loss with a Rose Bowl win, which would probably leave them ranked in the top 3 in the final national rankings.

This season, Ohio State got off to a slow start, and currently stands at 6-4. Despite the fact that they are in the middle of the pack, you can bet they will put up a great fight. Michigan will be playing on the road in Ohio State, which is one of the toughest places to win in the country.

So, now it has come down to one final week...the biggest game of the year is once again a matchup against perennial rival Ohio State.

Ohio Recount Appears Imminent

I'd like to mention a few updates on the issue of a potential Ohio Recount:

-David Cobb and Michael Badnarik filed for a recount in Ohio. By Ohio State law, they needed to provide $150,000 to pay for the cost of the recount. Since late last week, they have already raised $144,000, which means they are certainly going to reach that goal. Given that the money has already been raised, a recount is probable.

Currently, Bush leads by an unofficial count of around 136,000 votes

There are 155,000 provisional ballots to be counted. In the 2000 election, 90% of these ballots were counted in the final total. In this years elections, they have begun counting provisional ballots, and estimates are that between 75 and 90% of the provisional ballots will be counted.
Let's make some assumptions. We'll assume a relatively safe 80% of the provisional ballots will be counted. Of these, the vast majority are disenfranchised black and minority voters (Stats support this fact) If we assume the provisionals go 80-20% for Kerry,Bush will receive an additional 24,800 votes, while Kerry will receive an additional 99,200 votes. This will tighten the race by 74,400 votes.

136,000
-74,400
-----------
61,600

Next, we bring in the issue of ballot "spoilage". A spoiled ballot is a ballot that was not read properly by the voting machine. An overwhelming 92,672 spoiled ballots were counted. The official reason given for these ballots being spoiled is voters that either A) didn't vote for president, or B) Voted for more than one president. Most likely, the issue is a pregnant or hanging chad. These ballots should definitely be recounted and sorted by hand.
As in the 2000 Florida election, ballot spoilage occurs predominately among black and minority voters. There is also the possibility of systematic discarding and voter fraud occurring among this group. Studies have shown that Cuyahoga county, the predominant democratic area in Ohio, demonstrated levels of ballot spoilage that were 6-7 times the rate of ballot spoilage throughout the rest of the state. It is not unreasonable to assume that if the spoiled ballots were to be recounted, that Kerry could would up an additional 35,000 ballots. Suddenly, we are in a race:

61,600
-35,000
---------
26,600

Next comes the question of systematic fraud. Cuyahoga county registered 98,00 more votes than voters. Potential source of fraud? you bet. Warren county, with 93,000 votes going 73% for Bush, locked out all media from the vote counting process, citing a false claim that the Department of Homeland Security and FBI had issued an imminent security threat in the area. These allegations were later found to be false -- This county should automatically be recounted.
How about the fact that Blackwell, the head of the committee to re-elect George Bush, is also the head of the Ohio State Voting Committee. How is this not a major conflict of interest?

Questions remain. Let us all hope and pray that these questions are thoroughly answered with a full and transparent recount, without the interference of James Blackwell.

The Wolverine's Future Looks Bright

Today's 42-20 win over Northwestern was very reassuring. The outcome of this game was never really in much question, but today we finally saw Michigan's top young offensive players put together impressive games on the same day.

Throughout this season, I have often lamented the early season loss to Notre Dame, because an undefeated season looked so attainable in hindsight. By mid-season, we had witnessed the emergence of freshman running back Michael Hart and quarterback Chad Henne, who have admirably replaced the roles of graduating seniors Chris Perry and John Navarre. I had often looked back at the early season loss as missed opportunity, because this was the only season the Michigan offense would benefit from the explosive combination of Braylon Edwards and Michael Hart.

My concerns were answered with today's performance. For me, today was all about the return Steve Breaston. This guy is a truly amazing athlete, and was my favorite player to watch last season. He has been hampered all season long with a broken hand, and has never really looked comfortable on the field - until today, that is. Every time Breaston was given the ball, he was able to juke his way to an extra 4-5 yards after it looked like he had no where to go. The highlight of the game for me was seeing Breaston run a 67 yard punt return for a touchdown. Overall, Breaston returned 4 punts for 102 yards (25.5 ypr) and a touchdown, 3 kickoff returns for 78 yards (26 ypr), caught 4 passes for 37 yards and a touchdown, and carried the ball twice for 26 yards. Overall, Breaston put together 243 yards of total offense.

Michael Hart was once again named the player of the game. In today's game, hart carried the ball 23 times for 159 yards, and three touchdowns. In the past 5 games, Hart has managed to rush the ball 983 yards (197 ypg) and 6 touchdowns.

Meanwhile, Chad Henne has been quietly putting together a very fine season as a freshman quarterback. This guy has poise under pressure, helping Michigan come from behind in the fourth quarter in big fashion three separate times (vs. Minnesota, Purdue, and Michigan State). Overall, Henne now has thrown for 19 touchdowns, along with 10 interceptions.

Also putting together a fine season is Jason Avant. Avant is a very capable receiver, and always seem to be there to make the big plays when the game is on the line. Avant has scored touchdowns in each of the last two games, including that huge touchdown reception in the 2nd overtime vs. Michigan State to keep the game alive.

No discussion of Michigan's offense would be complete without talking about Braylon Edwards. Edwards is probably the most talented receiver in the country, and every time Henne throws a long bomb towards the end zone I end up jumping to my feet in expectation as I look for Edwards to jump up and make another leaping touchdown reception. Edwards was almost single-handedly responsible for the huge comeback win vs. Michigan State last week, in which he score three touchdowns in the fourth quarter and overtime. Edwards is among the NCAA national leaders in receiving yardage this season, and has 9 touchdowns.

Today was senior's day in Ann Arbor -- the last home game for fifteen seniors. Along with Braylon Edwards, this was the last home game for Marlin Jackson, Marcus Curry, Kevin Dudley, David Bass, Tim Massaquoi, David Underwood, Adam Finley, Tim Bracken, and Adam Finley.

There will be a lot of holes to fill at the beginning of next season, but today's re-emergence of Steve Breaston as an offensive threat gives me reason to believe that next season's team may have what it takes to challenge for the national title.

Election Result Overturned (Diebold Accuvote 2000 ES Optical Scan Model)

Check it out...

Computer Glitch Changes Election Result

A manual hand recount overturned the election results of the county commisioner's race in Indiana's Franklin County. Originally, it was announced that a republican candidate had won, but after conducting a hand recount, the result was overturned, and a democratic candidate took his place.

The election was recorded using a Diebold Accuvote 2000 ES system, which is one of the optical scan models.

They are already claiming this was an isolated incident...even though no explanation for the problem has been provided. The damage has been done. Given the easily hackable nature of Diebold voting machines, I almost feel like they should begin auditing many of precincts in the country that used Diebold Accuvote systems. As I have demonstrated in my blog, it is probably useless to audit the votes that used the Diebold Accuvote Touch Screen machines, since there is little hope of finding the original results if they have been tampered with.

The Case for Open Source Voting Technology

We cannot allow the government to conduct another election using closed source voting applications, developed by private companies. There is simply no advantage to relying on a private company to develop a voting machine. There are literally thousands of open source programmers that would be more than happy to work together towards the development of a completely transparent standardized voting application -- just ask the regular audience of readers on Slashdot. The source would be available online for all to view -- Any security holes or logic flaw will quickly be noticed, and taken care of. There will no secret backdoors, and we can rest assure that the no voting fraud will take place. An MD5 hash of the final application code would be available on a public server, which would be used to verify that every machine had the original copy of the source code. In short, a national standardized voting machine is the ideal application for open source technology.

WE CANNOT ALLOW CLOSED SOURCE VENDORS TO PROVIDE VOTING MACHINES FOR THE ELECTION!

(Especially when the CEO of the company is a known supporter and contributor to one of the candidates)

It seems inevitable that we will continue to move towards depending on computer voting. If so, the need for reliable open source development is unquestionable.

Ohio Voter Fraud Suspicions Remain

On election night, I kept a close watch on the exit polls. I went to sleep feeling comfortable that Kerry would take Ohio, because the exit polls showed he had a 2% lead among males and a 6% lead among females in both Florida and in Ohio. I went to bed around 1:00 AM.

I awoke in the morning, around 7:00 AM, and was surprised to see that both the Florida exit polls and the Ohio exit polls had been "adjusted" to match the actual election values. I thought "That's weird"....would they really be polling people after 1:00 AM? I felt like something was up. It seemed like they had no journalistic integrity.

Well, yet another blogger has performed some statistical analysis. It seems like CNN actually subtracted the number of voter included in the Kerry column to make the numbers line up.
Check out the two screenshots:

12:21 AMhttp://members.cox.net/theblack/cnn_fraud1.gif

1:41 AMhttp://members.cox.net/theblack/cnn_fraud1.gif

The first poll included 1963 respondents. The second included 2020 respondents. Now check this out:

CNN screenshot #1:

---

12.21 am, 1963 respondents so far

Total vote: Male 47% of poll , Female 53% of poll

Let look at the Male Bush and Kerry Totals:
Bush 47% of Votes X 49% of male votes X 1963 Votes = 452 Votes

Kerry 47% of Votes X 51% of males votes X 1963 Votes = 471 Votes

Now look at CNN screenshot #2:

---

Total vote: Male 47% of poll , Female 53% of poll

Bush 47% of Votes X 52% of male votes X 2020 Votes = 494

VotesKerry 47% of Votes X 47% of males votes X 2020 Votes = 447

Votes

So, they polled an additional 57 People, of which 27 were guys. With the 27 new male votes, they added 42 votes to Bush, and SUBTRACTED24 votes from Kerry's column.

I knew something was up when I woke up that morning....I didn't think CNN would be stupid enough to try and pull something that was mathematically impossible.

---

Now, you might say "Exit Polls don't mean anything...they don't prove anything." That is true, but they can be used as supporting evidence. Anyways, to lend additional credence to these reports, I'd like to exhibit another study, conducted in New Zealand.

Traditionally, state Exit Polls have been a very good indicator of final voting results. Traditionally, exit polls have been accurate within 2%. After all, they are polling actual voters on election night. The first real break from this trend was the 2000 Florida election, where the exit polls showed Gore leading by 3%, but somehow resulted in a 537-vote decision for Bush. I guess throwing away over 200,000 ballots would have that effect.

Anyways, in the New Zealand study, they found that the safe states were all within the traditional 2% margin. The alarming fact was that in the 12 critical swing states (CO,FL,MI,MN,NE,NV,NH,NM,OH,PA,WI,IA), the average discrepancy was a 2.5% red shift, or a total movement of 5% from the exit poll predictions, which was nearly twice the average of the safe states.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00142.htm

---

In other news, Warren county election officials previously cited the fact that the "Department of Homeland Security" and the FBI had contacted them and told them to seal off the election to the media because they were in imminent danger of a terrorist attack. They stated that on a scale of 1 - 10, the terror level was a 10. It has now been confirmed that both the department of homeland security and the FBI have been contacted, and neither issued such a statement. Warren county included 93,000 voters, and went 77% for George W. Bush. If they want any credibility at all, they will manually recount this entire county, along with Cuyahoga county, in front of the media.

Dissecting the "Moral Values" Vote

I read a recent article on Slate trying to claim that moral values did not drive the presidential election's final result. The article is entitled "The Gay Marriage Myth: Terrorism, not values, drove Bush's re-election", and is available here: http://www.slate.com/id/2109275/.

I'd like to refute that claim. In fact, Bush won only with the combination of those two issues. Without the Moral Values issue, Bush would've lost this election hands down. That is also true with the Terrorism issue -- 9/11 was a blessing in disguise for President Bush -- it won him a re-election, and it gave him an excuse to wage the most regrettable of wars -- not to mention the passage of the USAPATRIOT act, which was a travesty in itself.

Anyways, here is my Analysis, based on CNN's Exit Polls

Here are the current unofficial results:

59,459,765 - President Bush (51%)
55,949,407 - John Kerry (49%)

---

115,409,172 total votes

---

Kerry had close to a 50%+ lead in each of the following categories:

• Economy/Jobs (80% - 18%) (20% of Vote)
• Iraq (73% - 26%) (15% of Vote)
• Health Care (77% - 23%) ( 8% of Vote)
• Education (73% - 26%) ( 4% of Vote)

Bush won the election on three categories, and basically carried the election on the issues of terrorism and moral values:

• Moral Values (80% - 18%) (22% of Vote)
• Terrorism (86% - 14%) (19% of Vote)
• Taxes (57% - 43%) (5% of Vote)

Moral Values (22% - Approx. 25,359,017 Votes)

80% Bush (Approx - 20,312,014 Votes)

18% Kerry (Approx - 4,564,623 Votes)

If we eliminate the effect of the "Moral Values vote", Kerry wins the vote by a 13.5% margin.

Kerry - 51,384,784 Votes (56.7%)

Bush - 39,147,751 Votes (43.2%)

---

90,532,535 Total Votes

Terrorism (19% - Approx. 21,927,743 Votes)

86% Bush (Approx - 18,857,861 Votes)

14% Kerry (Approx - 3,069,884 Votes)

If we eliminate the effect of the "Terrorism Vote", Kerry wins by a 13.1% margin.

Kerry - 52,879,523 Votes (56.5%)

Bush - 40,601,904 Votes (43.4%)

---

93,481,417 Votes (13.1%)

---

So, we can see that in either case, if we remove one of the two major trump issues for Bush, Kerry wins the election handedly. For whatever reason, these two issues were "trump cards". It still strikes me as very strange that the people voting for "moral values" do not see the contradictions in their vote. The people sitting "moral values" are primarily white evangelical/born again voters (23% of vote, which went 78% Bush/ 21% Kerry) These people voted for Bush because they felt the alternative, John Kerry, represented morally reprehensible values -- support for gay marriage and abortion.

The problem is that this election wasn't supposed to be about abortion and gay marriage. The abortion issue was decided in 1973. If you look at the exit polls, a slim majority of American (55%) support either gay marriage or gay civil unions. This election was supposed to be a referendum on President Bush. The Bush Administration knew they didn't have a leg to stand on, so they somehow turned the election into a referendum on John Kerry.

---

Since we're discussing moral values, let's look at a few bible verses:

Matt.22:36-40 - Master, which is the great commandment in the law? (37) Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. (38) This is the first and great commandment. (39) The second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. (40) On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Matt.7:12 - "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

John 8:7 - He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Matthew 7:1 - Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Matthew 7:2 - For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Luke 6:37 - Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven

---

Okay, so far we've established that it is not the Christian's place to judge the actions of others. According to the bible, judgment should be left to God. As the statement "let he who is without sin" implies, we all have our own faults, so why should we legislate laws that forbid certain actions simply because one's faith dictates that such action is immoral. The bible also forbids a lot of other issues:

---

Deuteronomy 14:4 - These [are] the animals which you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat,the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the mountain goat, the antelope, and the mountain sheep.

Deuteronomy 14:21 - You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk.

---

Should we make these into campaign issues in the next election. Of course not. Some people may choose to abide by these teachings, but there is no reason to legislate these issues. The issues of gay marriage and abortion are extremely personal issues -- they do not affect the people who are voting on moral grounds in any way. Moral issues and practices presented in the bible are between that person and God.

---

Let's look at a few more verses:

---

Exodus 20:16 - Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Exodus 20:13 - Thou shalt not kill.

Deuteronomy 14:7 - If there is among you a poor man of your brethren, within any of the gates in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother, 8 "but you shall open your hand wide to him and willingly lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he needs

---

These are also moral values. The bible teaches very strongly about helping others, and not shutting the door on those in need. In the United States, there are 44 million people without health insurance, millions that are unemployed or underemployed, and many million homeless. Does it look like the Bush Administration is going out of their way to help these people out?
The war in Iraq -- I've stated it before, as you've read many times on my blog before. This war was an illegitimate war, waged on false pretenses. The Bush Administration has lied through it's teeth time and time again. So, tell me again, what moral values were you voting for?

The Bush Administration is probably wishing that Bloggers didn't exist

bloggers are going to change the world...Big Media isn't doing there job anymore, so bloggers are here to take their place. The difference between bloggers and the mass media, is that in the blogosphere, news spreads like wildfire. Any new story that breaks out suddenly has the eyes and analysis of thousands, if not millions, if inquiring minds.

The big media didn't try to touch the Bush Buldge story because they knew there was no way they could ever get proof of the incident. What are you going to do? Ask the president to take his jacket off? of course not...and he knew it.

It is much harder to try and pull off voting fraud. It's another 34days before the president is officially elected, and you can bet that hundreds of thousands of minds are going to be digging through the electoral results, pulling out any irregularities that may point toward mistakes or voting fraud.

It's a cool world we live in, isn't it?

Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia -- could they all be in the Optical Scan Fraud in Florida

Take a look at the following numbers:

http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm

Compare the Op-Scan voting to the E-Voting. This is looking very much like doctored results. The trend is obvious. In almost every county using Op-Scan, the number of expected democrats is 30-70% lower than expected, while 100-300% higher than expected for republicans. In E-Voting, there is an across the board trend of 30% increase on both sides, which can be directly attributed to the increased voter turnout.

What's more: The thee companies involved are Diebold, ES&S, and Sequoia. All three companies have strong ties to the Bush Administration. The CEO of Diebold, Walden O'Dell is on the record, stating that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.

(http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/031104dieboldceo.htm)

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, once the head of the Senate Ethics Committee, was the one time owner, Chairman, and CEO of Election Systems & Software (ES&S),

What's more? ES&S machines were the only machines used when Senator Hagel ran for election in 1996 and 2000, and is responsible for about 60% of all vote counting in the United States. Senator Hagel demonstrated a tremendous conflict of interest in running in an election where he owned the voting machines used to process the results. This conflict of interest was called into question by the opposing candidates, but no response was ever given.

(http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0301/S00166.htm)

What's more? Diebold and ES&S are directly related: The original developer of the Diebold systems and one time CEO of the company, Bob Urosevich, is actually the brother of Todd Urosevich, the founder of ES&S.To top that off, ES&S and Sequoia use identical hardware and software to run their optical scan machines. So, basically, a single inside man would be able to provide instructions on how to game the system for all three of these voting machines. Given the highly improbable statistical skewing of the results, the credibility of the entire election is in severe question.

Nader Seeks Recount in New Hampshire

Yay!!!!! Ralph Nader is making a political statement! He is calling on the support of John Kerry in seeking a recount in the state of New Hampshire. Although Kerry already won New Hampshire, if it can be proven that voter fraud was undertaken in this state, recounts in other states will surely be undertaken. Ohio and Florida may follow. Specifically, inexplicable irregular patterns have been found in voting results. Nader will be targeting the AccuVote Diebold Machines, which gave President Bush 5-15% skews in the voting results when compared to Exit Polling.

Nader will be holding a press conference at 1:00 PM Tomorrow
Details:

http://votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=403

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x25116

There is an online petition to congress to investigate the results of the 2004 Presidential Election:

http://www.petitiononline.com/uselect/petition.html

and while you're at it, here's a site where you can vote to impeach Bush:

http://www.votetoimpeach.org/

(Hey there is a bid to impeach Blair over "gross misconduct" in the US-led war in Iraq. Could a similar movement in the US be far behind?)

Impeach Blair

Gulf Daily News

Here is an update on the Ohio Presidential Election Numbers:

• Bush is ahead by 136,483 uncertified votes
• There are 155,000 uncounted provisional ballots
• There are 92,676 discarded ballots that were not counted
• There is an unknown number of overseas absentee ballots
• There were 92,000 more votes than voters recorded in Cuyahoga county
• There were 92,251 ballots counted in secrecy in Warren county, hidden behind the guise of the Homeland Security Act
• There are 3,989 votes that were invalidly cast for George W. Bush in a county with only 300 voters + many other cases being investigated

When all is said and done, this race could really start to heat up. Is it possible that Kerry could catch up? The only way we can find it is with a full recount, after all the provisional and absentee ballots are in.

Here is a timeline of the voter certification and electoral process:

11/12/2004 - Absentee deadline; vote canvass begins;
12/1/2004 - certification expected; at this point a recount can be undertaken
12/7/2004 - Any disputes over choosing Electors must be resolved
12/13/2004 - the Electoral College meets to elect the president

Ralph Naders letter follows:

---

To The Secretary of State of New Hampshire:

The Nader-Camejo campaign requests a hand recount of the ballots in the presidential election in New Hampshire. Numerous voting rightsactivists have requested that we seek a recount of this vote.

We have received reports of irregularities in the vote reported on the AccuVote Diebold Machines in comparison to exit polls and trends in voting in New Hampshire. These irregularities favor President George W. Bush by 5% to 15% over what was expected. Problems in these electronic voting machines and optical scanners are being reported in machines in a variety of states.

We are requesting that the state undertake this recount or a statistically significant sample audit of these vote counts.

We would like to make sure every vote counts and is counted accurately.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader
Paperless Electronic Voting

A bedrock of democracy is making sure that every vote counts. The counting of votes needs to be transparent so people can trust that their vote is counted as they cast it. Paperless electronic voting on touch screen machines does not provide confidence to ensure votes are counted the way voters intend. The software on which votes are counted is protected as a corporate trade secret and the software is so complex that if malicious code was embedded no analysis could discover it. Further, because there is no voter verified paper record, it is not possible to audit the electronic vote for accuracy, nor is it possible to conduct an independent recount. This Primary Day six million voters will be voting on paperless electronic voting machines. This is a grotesquely designed, over-complicated expensive system fraught with the potential for mistakes and undetected fraud.

On July 23, 2003 the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute reviewed the electronic voting system in Maryland and found that it had security far below even the most minimal security standards . . . . Johns Hopkins computer security experts concluded:

If we do not change the process of designing our voting systems, we will have no confidence that our election results will reflect the will of the electorate.

Computers are inherently subject to programming error, equipment malfunction, and malicious tampering. If we are to ensure fair and honest elections, and retain voter confidence in our democratic process, we need to ensure that there are no such questions. Therefore, it is crucial that any computerized voting system provide a voter-verifiable paper audit trail and that random audits of electronic votes be conducted on Election Day. Paperless electronic voting machines make it impossible to safeguard the integrity of our vote thereby threatening the very foundation of our democracy.

The seller of the machines, the Diebold Corporation, is a supplier of money to one of the major party candidates, George W. Bush. The CEO and top officers of Diebold are major contributors to the Bush campaign. This does not pass the smell test. Voters should report immediately any suspected malfunctions and deficiencies at voting precincts around the country to their Board of Elections. And voters should urge their legislators to require a voter verified paper ballot trail for random audits and independent recounts.

Ohio Voter Fraud

Check out this video: Ohio Voter Fallout

This is huge!

Yesterday, I heard on Free Speech Radio News that potentially up to 500,000 provisional and absentee ballots have not been counted.

Now, there is news that the Warren County election officials did not allow media to witness the vote count, using the Homeland Security Act as a defence.

The Florida Election Optical Scanning Technology Story is going to pick up steam, and is also covered in this video.

DEMAND A RECOUNT!!!!!!

Analyzing Voter Turnout and Exit Polls

A few amusing, or otherwise entertaining and thought-provoking links that I thought you might enjoy:

Kerry Wins by a Landslide - A comical look at the global opinion of President Bush. When a paper, the Daily Mirror, from the United States major ally in the "war on terror" can run a headline entitled How can 59,054,087 People Be So Dumb?, you have to wonder how much credibility this administration can possibly have. Now that the British have begun a move to Impeach Blair, perhaps my suggestion of impeaching George W. Bush isn't quite so outlandish.

For more evidence on the thin support the Bush Administration receives outside of the non-friendly confines of the "heartland of America", take a look at Global Vote 2004. In a world-wide election, Bush received some quite outstanding support:

Canada - 74.2% Kerry, 9.1% Bush
Europe - 77.8% Kerry, 7.9% Bush
Asia - 75.9% Kerry, 14.8% Bush
Australia - 76.2% Kerry, 8.5% Bush
Central/South America - 79.5% Kerry, 9.8% Bush
Middle East - 45.6% Kerry, 37% Bush (It seems the red states and the terrorists are the only people who support Bush)

Global Vote - 77.1% Kerry, 13.8% Other, 9.1% Bush (Bush lost to "Others" -- ha, ha)

IQ and Politics - Pretty self-explanatory. The visual representation should reaffirm what you already knew.

Other ways to look at the election results:

Maps and Cartograms of US Election (University of Michigan Study) - Despite the fact that the standard electoral maps make most of the country look red, you have to remember that the final result was 51-48%, which is hardly a blowout. These maps give you a better visualization of voter turnout.

3d Representation of Voter Turnout - Another visual aid. You can really see how the democrats dominated every major city in the United States. The fact that New York City, the city most directly by 9/11, voted 85% in favor of the democrats, despite the fact that the two major reasons sited by Bush voters were Terrorism/National Security and Moral Values should make you question how tuned into to reality the "heart of America" truly is.

CNN Exit Polls - Despite being mocked for their inaccuracy in predicting the final results, the CNN Exit Polling data contains a wealth of information. I do have to call into question CNN's tactics. When I went to bed at 1:00 AM the night of the election, John Kerry held a 51-48% lead in the exit polls in both Ohio and Florida. When I awoke in the morning, I was somewhat surprised to see that the exit polling data had been "adjusted" to match the actual voting results. Were they really polling people in Florida from the hours of 1:00 AM to 7:00 AM that morning?

anyways, I'd like highlight a few key sections of data, and point out a few conclusions you could possibly draw from this data:

Vote By Income - A Straight Linear relationship (More money = greater chance of voting for Bush) For the population making under $15,000 per year, the vote went 63% - 36% in favor of John Kerry. At the other end of the spectrum, those making $200,000 or more voted 63% - 35% in favor of Bush (Guess they were a little worried about losing some of those tax cuts)

The line seems to be split around the $50,000/year mark. Those making less than $50,000/year voted in favor of Kerry by a 55% - 44% margin. It seems like once people get the point were they make a livable income, chances are that they no longer worry about anything going on around the world. I'm somewhat surprised to read from the data that 55% of the voting population makes over $50,000/year...That seems a little high to me, but I guess Kerry would've won otherwise.

Vote By Education - This actually seems to form a gradual bell curve. Voters with the lowest level of education (No High School) and Voters with the highest level of education (Postgrad Study) both voted in favor of Kerry. Kerry's highest level of support came from people with postgraduate study -- seems to coincide with the State IQ data sited above, along with a study conducted by the University of Maryland that stated Kerry supporters are generally well-informed on the issues, while Bush supporters seem to have their head buried in the sand. (I'm convinced these people would rather vote for Adolph Hitler or Saddam Himself if the alternative was to vote for a man that opposed their moral values...they really don't get it)

Most Important Issue - This is it folks. The #1 issue sited for deciding who to vote for? Moral Values, with 22%. Of those sitting moral values, an overwhelming 80% of these self-righteous folks voted for George W. Bush, the man responsible for inciting an illegitimate war, based on false pretenses, resulting in the deaths of over 100,000 civilian casualties and counting....

Kerry wins by an average of 50% margins on most other issues (Health Care, Economy/Jobs, Iraq, and Education), but he simply could not make up the ground.

The moral values issue is very, very cloudy. A few months before the election, the Bush administration called for a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, knowing well that there was no way it would pass. They did this simply to draw the national spotlight on Kerry, making sure everybody knew he was in support of gay marriage. I knew right then this entire election would boil down to seeing if we could convince 51% of Americans that getting Bush out of office was more important than their own self-righteous reservations about gay marriage and abortion. In the debates, when questioned directly on the subject of the genetic disposition towards homosexuality, Bush had no answer -- he said he didn't know. How can you call for a constitution ban on an activity when you don't even have a firm grasp on the subject. Later, when asked if he supported a constitutional ban on gay marriage, he said he didn't. Is this not a flip-flop---they very activity the Bush Administration seem so keen on calling Kerry out on.

Anyways, I wanted to take one last look at the exit polls - 60% of Americans stated that they are in support of either Legal Marrying or Civil Unions among Same-sex couples, and 55% of Americans think abortions should be always or mostly legal. It's strange that an issues that the majority of Americans support could cause such divisiveness. When you get to the heart of the matter, this is a deep religious conviction for many people. For those 40% of Americans opposed to gay marriage, and 45% of Americans opposed to abortion, it was the trump card. Tell the people that the opponent supports these measures, and the sheep will vote for you despite the overwhelming evidence that you are on the way to becoming the worst president in United States history.

Allegations of Voter Fraud Begin to Surface

Some interesting voting irregularities have begun to show up. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If there has ever been a perfect application for open source technology, it is voting technology. How can a company like Diebold not be considered a conflict of interest, when the CEO of the company said himself that he will do whatever it takes to get Bush re-elected?

This is a matter of common sense. Build a complete open source electoral solution and standardize it across the board. Put the source online, so that every Slashdot nerd will take there own sweet time digging through the code, making sure that there are no bugs, vulnerabilities, or backdoors available. Publish an MD5 hash to make sure that nobody can manipulate the source code after it is distributed. And...You're done. It's that simple.

This should be a matter of intense public interest and scrutiny. It does look like there is a grass roots effort taking place with the Open Voting Consortium, although it does not look like they have picked up much steam yet.

So, in the mean time, I would like to show you a few cases that clearly demonstrate the need for a transparent electoral process:

#1. http://www.michigancityin.com/articles/2004/11/04/news/news02.txt
LaPorte County, Michigan somehow lost 50,000 votes in a computer glitch. There were 77,000 votes originally registered, but the computer only tallied 22,000 votes. A computer glitch was blamed.

"Maybe there was a power surge," LaPorte County Clerk Lynne Spevak said. "Something zapped it."

Spevak said workers at the clerk's office thought a computer correction could be done once they received a software patch from Election Systems and Software, the Chicago company that provided the tabulation software. However, the patch did not work.

#2. http://www.washingtondispatch.com/spectrum/archives/000715.html
Palm beach counted 88,000 more votes than voters. Shouldn't this raise some eyebrows? 542,835 ballots were cast for a presidential candidate while only 454,427 voters turned out for the election (including absentee). This leaves a discrepancy of 88,408 votes cast for the presidential candidates.

#3. Palm Beach Post

Voting machines in Broward County mysteriously began counting backwards once they reached 32,000 votes. (This one really makes me laugh -- a 16-byte signed integer can only store 32,676 values -- this is a mistake only a freshman college student could possibly make -- If this quality of software design used for our national elections, we are in pitiful shape. Please join the Open Source Voting Consortium to make sure this never happens again: http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/

(If you'll recall, Broward County was in the news a couple weeks ago. Broward County had the highest democratic turnout in Florida in the 2000 election, and suspicions were raised when 58,000 absentee ballots went missing: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/Americas/3960679.stm)

#4 http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm

(Some alarming trends have been found when analyzing voter turnout by machine type in Florida Counties. Somewhat surprisingly, Diebold is not involved. Analysis was performed by comparing republican and democratic voter turnout compared to expected voter turnout, based on the number of registered democrat's and republicans per county. The expected voter turnout was determined by multiplying the % of registered party members x the total voter turnout. This method should provide numbers which are reasonably close to the final voter numbers. The alarming trend was that the numbers were extremely skewed in favor of the republicans in counties that used optically scanned paper ballots. In some counties, as much as 400% of the expected Republican vote was registered, while the democratic turnout was 60-70% lower than expected. The important thing to notice is that these anomalies were only exhibited in counties using Optical Scanning technology.

Additional Sources on Optical Scanning Technology Fraud:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1106-30.htm

Actual Florida Voting Results by County

#4. http://www.ansiblegroup.org/furtherleft/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=51

In New Mexico, it is estimated that as many of 10% of the ballots casted were provisional ballots. The difference between Bush and Kerry on the CNN Site is a mere 8,366 votes, yet they have already called the state for Bush. How can they do this when somewhere around 70,000 votes have yet to be counter? And they call themselves journalists.....

#5. http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/voting.problems.ap/index.html
A computer glitch was discovered to have accidentally given 3,893 extra votes to George W. Bush. Currently, Bush has a 136,000 ballot lead in Ohio, but as many as 270,000 absentee and provisional ballots remain to be accounted for. If additional irregularities are found in the Ohio Election, the margin may become slim enough that a full recount should be considered.

#6. http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/11/03/electronic.voting.ap/index.html
Overall, over 1,100 problems were registered nation-wide with electronic voting machines.

Building the case for Impeachment - Primary Motivational Factors of the Iraqi War

What was the primary motivation for the Iraqi war? Before the war began, the Bush Administration sited two major factors that convinced the American Public that we should go to war:

1) Iraq has weapons of Mass Destruction -- here is a link of Bush's famous Mushroom Cloud as a Smoking Gun Speech.

2) Iraq has irrefutable connections to Al Qaeda

The 9/11 Commission slammed both of these statements -- It was determined that there simply was no evidence to support the motivations for war originally given by the Bush Administration. This should be a slam dunk -- they lied about why they were going to war, and they got caught in their lie. Why wasn't there an immediate impeachment trial?

After the 9/11 commission report, the Bush administration adjusted their stance on the motivation for war -- It was now "We are liberating the people of Iraq from the oppression of Saddam's regime" Okay --- well....why didn't you say that in the first place? Why are you calling this a "War on Terror"

For a better understanding of the administration's motivations, we need to take a look at the actions of the US Army once the invasion began. Once the invasion began, what was the first thing the US went for and guarded? Why, it was the Oil Fields. Even Fox News proudly described the US troops setting up camp to prevent the Iraqis from burning the fields in protest.

So, now the news comes out that the US failed to guard the Al Qaaqaa munitions dump after the invasion began. How does this relate? Well, it shows us where the US Administration's priorities were when the war began.

The war was supposed to be about removing the WMDs from the Iraqis. The Al Qaaqaa weapons cache was well known to the UN weapons inspectors, and the United States was informed of the location of this cache.

The Bush Administration tried to downplay the importance of the missing weapons, stating that they were missing before they ever got there. Then, they tried to say that the weapons were destroyed on April 13th. But, guess what? They were lying through their teeth....

It turns out an embedded journalist was with a unit that investigated the Al Qaaqaaq weapons cache on April 18th, 5 days after they were supposedly destroyed.

Take a look at these clips:

Exclusive video of Iraq explosives getting nationwide attention

EXCLUSIVE:
5 EYEWITNESS NEWS video may be linked to missing explosives in Iraq

So, here we have it. Video evidence that proves the Bush Administration was lying to the American public about the missing weapons. Here are a few more links on the story:

Troops Witness Looting -
This article informs us that troops visiting Al Qaaqaa witnessed heavy looting of the weapons cache, and requested help in guarding the facilities. No response was ever provided.

Missing Missiles in Iraq could total 4,000 -
A short Reuters article stating that up to 4,000 shoulder - mounted rockets may also be missing from the Al Qaaqaa facility.

Taken individually, these stories may not amount to much, but, taken together, they begin to paint a picture of a wicked and corrupt Bush Administration that is not at all concerned with the war in terror, but is instead motivated by ensuring that that American economic growth, driven by high energy usage, is able to continue unabated, rather than by a "War on Terror". The fact that the US Army was stationed to guard the Oil Fields, while a munitions dump, containing substances used in the development of nuclear weapons, was left unguarded should be enough to show the true motivations of the Bush Administration. Couple this with the huge conflict of interest represented by the fact that Halliburton, one of the Bush Administration's top political contributors, was awarded 7 BILLION dollars in no-bid contracts in the war rebuilding effort, and you should be able to put together a pretty good picture of where the Bush Administration's true motivations lie.

Bush said it himself, when discussing Osama Bin Laden: "To tell you the truth, I'm not really that concerned about him" Bush is not fighting a "War on Terror" He is fighting a war that will preserve the environment-raping, profit driven US economy for an additional 10 years. Rather than fight this war -- this country should be focusing on the issues that truly matter -- like: Why are we using so much energy, in such an inefficient manner?

Would the people of this country truely support this war if they knew that there was an alternative: i.e. learning to reduce energy expenditure by using public transportation, walking or biking to work, building an infrastructure of renewable energy production (solar and wind)

As a country, we need to learn how to grow up. Can our current political structure ever support a society of informed citizens, and a political body capable of making responsible decisions. I don't know....I sure hope so. It is my dream that the internet and the power of blogging allow Americans to share their hopes and ideas in such a way, so that we can one day rid this country of the corporate-sponsoring, campaign lobbying, special interest group hugging politics that American Politics has become. In the meantime, we still have the "Bush Administration" to deal with before we can begin the healing.

Bush's second term - The case for Impeachment

I'll tell you right off that I am scared. In his first press conference after the election, President Bush stated that he has now earned capital -- capital that he intends to use. What does that mean? The president thinks he has a mandate. Mr. President -- I have news for you -- more people voted against you than against any other president in United States history. That is not a mandate.

I am scared because a Bush administration with a republican majority in the house, and a republican majority in the senate is one scary phenomenon. How in the world did this happen. As the recent headline in the British Newspaper, the Daily Mirror, recently read:

How can 59,054,087 People be so stupid?

What can we do to stop this madman? Since the "stupid" people that are the American public were not able to see through the lies of the administration, and their own self-righteous views on acceptable norms, we may actually need to stoop to the level of the republicans.

If you weren't aware, the republicans embarked on a massive 10 year campaign to discredit Bill Clinton, and have him removed from power. I recommend viewing The Hunting of the President for a better idea of the levels the republicans stooped to in order to bring the impeachment trial upon President Clinton. This film outlines the tremendous waste of taxpayer resources that was the massive investigation of the president's sexual conduct, distracting the president from his duties of running the United States.

Why don't we give the republicans a taste of their own medicine? I mean, which is truly worse:

A) Getting a blow job/having an affair

OR

B) Declaring an illegitimate war, based on false pretenses, all the while lying to the American people about the motivations for the war; brining about a Middle East that is now a breeding ground for Anti-American sentiment, and causing Iraq to become a failed state

Somebody help me out here....Under what situations can the president be brought to trial. Time after time after time, the Bush Administration exhibited massive errors in judgment, conflicts of interest, and deceptive practices.

Take a look at some of the statements President Bush himself used in persuading the American Public as to why we should go to war:

• "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." (Radio Address, October 5, 2002)
• "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
• "We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
• "We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.
• We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
• "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." (Cincinnati, Ohio Speech, October 7, 2002).
• "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." (State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003).

These are all lies -- lying to the American people in order to declare war. Why hasn't the president been brought to trial -- is there no accountability/checks and balances left in American Politics? One would assume that the court of public opinion/presidential election would be enough to put a stop to this madness. I guess this is simply not true. The American people have become sheep -- the wool is pulled over their eyes, and no amount of corruption exhibited on the part of the Bush administration is enough to persuade the American public -- as long as the other side supports questionable practices that make them feel "icky".

The Divided States of America

The 2004 presidential election was a demoralizing blow to all progressive Americans. This election was supposed to be a referendum on the performance of the Bush Administration. This should have been a slam dunk. I simply cannot how understand how anybody in their right mind could consider voting for this administration, given the overwhelming evidence showing that this country is worse off in every way imaginable. I know this has all been hashed over millions of times, but I feel like running through some of the major talking points in the list one more time:

• Starting an illegitimate war, based entirely on a huge series of lies
• Repealing 50 years of environmental law
• Exhibiting massive levels of conflict of interest in their dealings with Enron and Halliburton,
• Violating/completely ignoring international treaties such as the Geneva Convention,
• Violating constitutionally-protected civil liberties with the passing of the patriot act
• Lost more jobs than any administration in recent history
• Went from a budget surplus to the largest budget deficit in history,
• Ignoring 44 million uninsured Americans,
• Gave tax breaks to the richest 2% of the country,
• Refused to cooperate with other levels of government, often refusing to provide documents and intelligence, which is an action required by law
  

Overall, I have to say that a real sense of disillusionment and despair has set in. What choice do we have? How can this country possibly condone the actions of this administration? If the red states will support this administration, given the overwhelming evidence that we are better off without it, there is no hope left for this country.

Given the sense of hopelessness, discussion has begun to take two major paths: secession
and moving to Canada.

Secession
Definition of secession



Although the image above may appear extreme and ludicrous, the concept does at least deserve some discussion. If the same "red states" always vote republican, no matter what the facts may say otherwise, while the "blue states" always vote democratic, what point is there in maintaining a united front. It is obvious that the blue states in the northeast corner of the United States support a fairer, more progressive country, while those in the "heart of America" are determined to run the country as if it was the Holy Roman Empire, and we are in the midst of the crusades.

Googling for "seceding"...

http://news.google.com/news?q=seceding&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&sa=N&tab=wn

There are many people half-jokingly commenting on the topic. They are
only half-joking, because in their hearts, many actually believe that
it may be the best course of action. Even Slate.com, A relatively
neutral, corporate-owned website, has an article entitled "Could the
Blue States Secede?": Slate Magazine

Moving to Canada

I am originally Canadian, and the thought of moving to Canada before things get worse does occasionally cross my mind. In many ways, Canada does represent the ideals upon which I wish the United States were run. So, why would I choose to stay? Maybe I feel like I may one day be able to make a difference in the US? I do miss the "hockey as a religion" aspect of Canadian life, but I don't miss the terribly cold winters.

Slate's running an article entitled 'Moving to Canada, Eh?."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2109300/#ContinueArticle

Apparently, the Canadian Immigration Website was flooded with requests the day after the election....

http://www.canada.com/news/national/story.html?id=1b022644-e8f8-44c9-8cae-c90678858708

The day after the election, Slashdot ran a story entitled "Kerry Concedes Election to Bush":

http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/03/1637232&tid=103&tid=219

This was a massively popular article, with over 5,500 user comments. It was rather entertaining, as a large % of the discussion dealt with the idea of moving to Canada, including a huge discussion on the Canadian national election.

The Morality of a Nation

The deciding factor in this year's election was that citizens of this country would rather condone the murder of over 100,000 thousand Iraqi citizens in an illegitimate war, waged on false pretensions, than consider the fact that allowing gay marriage or abortion may not be a bad idea. This concept was wrapped under the heading "moral values".

What does the Wikipedia have to say about the concept of morality?

Morality is a complex of principles based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which an individual determines whether his or her actions are right or wrong. These concepts and beliefs are often generalized and codified by a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behavior of its members. Conformity to such codification may also be called morality, and the group may depend on widespread conformity to such codes for its continued existence. A "moral" may refer to a particular principle, usually as informal and general summary with respect to a moral principle, as it is applied in a given human situation.

The irony that is somehow lost on all these people that voted against Kerry based on moral values, is that by doing so they are displaying a gross misunderstanding of the very concept of moral values? Where are the supposed moral values that this Bush Administration is supposed to represent? From what I can tell, the chief values displayed by this administration include:

Deceit, Arrogance, Pride, and intolerance

The hypocrisy of this administration is unbelievable...claiming to stand for moral values, while ignoring the needs of the very people this administration was elected to represent.