Thursday, January 26, 2006

My Comment to Craig Crawford

Craig Crawford wrote a brief entry on his blog, Crawford's List, about the likelihood that Alito will overturn Roe v. Wade. He says that Alito probably will do so because that's why Bush picked him. Crawford concluded by saying that Americans elected Bush, so we asked for it: "You get the Democracy you deserve," he wrote.

In a rare opportunity to correspond with a member of the mainstream media, I replied in his comments section as follows:

Whether the mainstream media wants to cover it or not, the evidence strongly indicates that Bush was not legitimately elected in either 2000 or 2004, Mr. Crawford. So, no, sir, we didn't ask for this president.

On what evidence do I state my opinion, you may ask? There is no shortage of such evidence, and it is not the stuff of crazy conspiracy theorists. Eminent scholars and mathematicians have even shown the statistical impossibility of Bush's victory in 2004 (Google it for yourself). Furthermore, it has been proven (although you would never know it by the mainstream media) that Diebold voting machines, among others, allow vote tampering, not only at the local level, but at the much more crucial central-tabulator level, where one person can change the overall tallies that are compiled from the hundreds or thousands of precinct machines with a couple clicks of the mouse. The conclusion of one participant in an official test is that such flaws could not have been accidentally built into the software (see the Leon County paragraph below).

A few examples:

Bev Harris [of] showed Gov. Howard Dean how to get into Diebold's main server through an "unlocked back door" that she had discovered by accident. This demonstration took place prior to the 2004 election. He was able to switch votes in a mock election in just a few seconds without leaving a trace of his presence. This all happened on the actual Diebold servers without Diebold's knowledge. I saw it happen. It is recorded in a 30-minute documentary film, which is available for free online [here] (may require QuickTime software).

Still skeptical? The Department of Homeland Security's very own web site warns about Diebold's back-door security flaw. In fact that flaw was listed on the site prior to the 2004 election, yet absolutely nothing was done about it. Even more amazingly, the warning is still there. Click here to see for yourself.

Still skeptical? Click the following link to read the findings of an OFFICIAL Leon County, FL, test of a Diebold optical-scanning machine in December 2005 (yes, just a little over one month ago). This particular report was written by one of the participants. You can Google "Leon County" and "Diebold" to find a number of local press reports of the test. It's funny how the mainstream national media has not covered it.

Finally, how come the exit polls were way off base ONLY in those states that used voting machines? And in each discrepancy, the final "official" tally always benefitted Bush. Yet, in counties that used paper ballots, every exit poll was almost a perfect match of the official vote tally. Here are some very revealing charts; and never mind the strange URL title, because the information is still very legitimate.

Exit polls are so very accurate that Bush even hired the same exit-poll company/companies to monitor the election in the Ukraine. In that country, Bush used the exit poll data to force a second election, because it showed that the challenger had won, while the actual election results showed the incumbent had won. How come we consider the exit polls sacrosanct there, yet they are the objects of scorn here, even though they came up with the very same discrepancies here as were found in the Ukraine?

So, no, sir, we didn't ask for this president.

Other links that reveal overwhelming evidence of an environment in which elections have been/could easily be stolen:
The United States Goverment Accountability OfficeSteven Freeman, University of Pennsylvania (pdf)
Video documentary of 2000 election in Florida (requires RealPlayer)

There are so many others out there. Just Google it in every way you can think of. Suspend your skepticism long enough to read the evidence for yourself. Don't dismiss it because of what you might consider the "lack of credentials" of the initial web sources. In the majority of cases, they are merely relaying information from very reputable sources.


Colleen said...

thank you for addressing this issue.

MJW said...

You're very welcome, Colleen.

Wilma Lamb said...

I live in Kansas and am a native Missourian and have been an ardent Democrat since the age of 4. I have thought all along that Wellstone, Mel Carnahan, and JFK JR were murdered. Also I have never believed the lone gunman theory in Dallas. Marksmen who practised every day were not able to achieve the accuracy necessary to hit JFK and physics don't support the piece of skull landing on the trunk as coming from a rear shot.