Full Length Version
How George Bush used computer fraud
to steal the election
The following facts point clearly to George Bush, Karl Rove and the
rest of his "dirty political tricksters" stealing this election:
1. Bush's History of Lying
George Bush has lied, denied the truth and has been unwilling to
take responsibility for any mistakes on the part of his
administration on numerous occasions, including weapons
of mass destruction, Medicare prescription drugs, military record
and the war on Iraq .
2. Voting Act in 2002-No Paper Trail
The Republicans passed the Voting Act in 2002 authorizing the
use of electronic voting machines in presidential elections with no
requirement that they produce a paper receipt (Paper Trail"), which
would allow an ironclad, independent assessment of whether the
Data in The Voting Machines accurately reflected the votes cast.
Tom DeLay and other top Republicans fought very hard not to
include in this bill a requirement that the electronic voting machines
be ableto generate "a paper trail". The Democrats attempted to
require this in that bill but to no avail.
3. No Recounts Possible
Without the capability of generating a "paper trail", there is
no way of having a recount of the votes which is required by law.
4. Bush Hires Diebold and DS&S to Make Voting Machines
The Bush administration then insured that the maturity of these
electronic voting machines were made by Diebold and ES&S.
ES&S and Diebold clearly dominate the field. ES&S claims that
they have tabulated "56 percent of the U.S. national vote for the
past four presidential elections", while a Diebold spokesperson
told this writer that the company processed about 35 percent of U.S.
electronic vote count in 2002.
The President of one of these companies and the VP of the other
are brothers. Both of them are staunch Republican supporters.
Diebold has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the
Republican campaign. The CEO of Diebold has been at George's
ranch in Texas on numerous occasions. The CEO of Diebold within
the last year has publicly promised to deliver the state of Ohio to
George Bush in this election.
On April 22, 2004, Jim Wasserman of the Associated Press (AP)
reported, "By an 8-0 vote, the state's (California) Voting Systems
and Procedures Panel recommended that [Secretary of State]
Shelley cease the use of the machines, saying that Texas-based
Diebold has performed poorly in California and its machines
malfunctioned in the state's March 2 primary election, turning
away many voters in San Diego County . . . In addition to the
ban, panel members recommended that a secretary of state's
office report released Wednesday, detailing alleged failings of
Diebold in California, be forwarded to the state attorney general's
office to consider civil and criminal charges against the company."
Interestingly, no one in the U.S. federal government seems to be
paying attention . . . as usual. There is no federal agency that has
regulatory authority or oversight of the voting machine industry—
not the Federal Election Commission (FEC), not the Department
of Justice (DOJ), and not the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). The FEC doesn't even have a complete list of all the
companies that count votes in U.S. elections.
Once again we are witness to an "eyes closed, hands off" approach to
protecting America. The 2004 election rests in the private hands of the
Urosevich brothers, who are financed by the far-out right wing and top
donors to the Republican Party. The Democrats are either sitting ducks
or co conspirators. I don't know which.
5. Diebold DES Code Broken in 1997
No agency hired by the federal government ever issued a report
indicating that these electronic voting machines manufactured by
Diebold and ES&S were secure from manipulation.
On the other hand, Dr. Avi Rubin, currently a Professor of Computer
Science at John Hopkins University "accidentally" got his hands on a
copy of the Diebold software program--Diebold's source code--which
runs their e-voting machines.
Dr. Rubin's students pored over 48,609 lines of code that make up
this software. One line in particular stood out over all the rest:
#defineDESKEY((des_KEY8F2654hd4").
All commercial programs have provisions to be encrypted so as
to protect them from having their contents read or changed by anyone
not having the key. The line that staggered the Hopkin's team was
that the method used to encrypt the Diebold machines was a method
called Digital Encryption Standard (DES), a code that was broken in
1997 and is NO LONGER USED by anyone to secure programs.
F2654hd4 was the key to the encryption. Moreover, because the KEY
was IN the source code, all Diebold machines would respond to the
same key. Unlock one, you have then ALL unlocked.
Professor Rubin's Study was published on the Internet in February,
2004. No Bush administration officials or government agencies ever
mentioned this report which clearly states that these electronic
voting machines are not suitable to be used in the upcoming election.
Bev Harris, of Black Box Voting, was videotaped with Democratic
presidential contender Howard Dean in March, 2004. On this
videotape entitled Votergate she and Howard Dean are able to hack
into the Diebold voting software and change the vote in 90 seconds.
Why weren't eyebrows raised by anyone in the government at this
point?
6. None or Criminally Negligent Government Oversight of Voting
Machines
Your local elections officials trusted a group called NASED – the
National Association of State Election Directors -- to certify that
your voting system is safe.
This trust was breached. NASED certified the systems based on the
recommendation of an "Independent Testing Authority" (ITA). What no
one told local officials was that the ITA did not test for security
(and NASED didn't seem to mind).
The ITA reports are considered so secret that even the California
Secretary of State's office had trouble getting its hands on one.
The ITA refused to answer any questions about what it does. Imagine
our surprise when, due to Freedom of Information requests, a couple
of them showed up in our mailbox.
The most important test on the ITA report is called the "penetration
analysis." This test is supposed to tell us whether anyone can break
into the system to tamper with the votes. "Not applicable," wrote
Shawn Southworth, of Ciber Labs, the ITA that tested the Diebold
GEMS central tabulator software. "Did not test."
This is Shawn Southworth, in his office in Huntsville, Alabama.
He is the man who carefully examines our voting software.
Shawn Southworth "tested" whether every candidate on the ballot has a
name. But we were shocked to find out that, when asked the most
important question -- about vulnerable entry points -- Southworth's
report says "not reviewed."
Ciber "tested" whether ballots comply with local regulations, but
when Bev Harris asked Shawn Southworth what he thinks about Diebold
tabulators accepting large numbers of "minus" votes, he said he
didn't mention that in his report because "the vendors don't like him
to put anything negative" in his report. After all, he said, he is paid by
the vendors.
Shawn Southworth didn't do the penetration analysis, but check out
what he wrote: "Ciber recommends to the NASED committee that
GEMS software version 1.18.15 be certified and assigned NASED
certification number N03060011815."
Maybe another ITA did the penetration analysis? Apparently not.
We discovered an even more bizarre Wyle Laboratories report.
In it, the lab admits the Sequoia voting system has problems, but
says that since they were not corrected earlier, Sequoia could
continue with the same flaws. You've gotta ask yourself: Are they
nuts? Some of them are computer experts. Well, it seems that
several of these people suddenly want to retire, and the whole
NASED voting systems board is becoming somewhat defunct,
but these are the people responsible for today's shoddy voting
systems.
If the security of the U.S. electoral system depends on you to
certify a voting system, and you get a report that plainly states
that security was "not tested" and "not applicable" -- what would
you do?
7. How Diebold and ES&S Began
Once upon a time there were two brothers: Bob and Todd Urosevich.
In the 1980's, with the financial backing of the right-wing extremist
Christian billionaire Howard Ahmanson, Bob and Todd founded a
company called American Information Systems (AIS) that built voting
machines. They were also certified to count votes.
It is interesting to note that back then there was no federal agency
with regulatory authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine
industry. Even more interesting is the fact that this is still true
today.
Not even the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has a complete list
of all the companies that count votes in U.S. elections.
But let us get back to our story....
In 1992 a conservative Nebraskan fellow called Chuck Hagel became
chairman of AIS as well as chairman of the McCarthy Group, a private
investment bank. This all happened shortly after he stopped working
for Bush Sr.'s administration as Head of the Private Sector Council.
In 1995 Hagel resigned from AIS and a year later ran for Senate,
with the founder of the McCarthy Group as his campaign manager.
In 1996 Chuck Hagel became the first Republican to ever win a
Nebraska senatorial campaign in 24 years, carrying virtually every
demographic group, including African American precincts that had
never voted Republican. The only company certified to count votes
in Nebraska at the time was AIS.
In 2003 the Senate Ethics Committee forced Chuck Hagel to reveal the
fact that he had $1 million to $5 million in investment in the
McCarthy Group, a fact he'd previously neglected to mention. The
McCarthy Group also happens to be a major owner of ES&S.
8. Criminal Record of Voting Machine Companies Diebold
During the 2000 presidential elections, Diebold made 16,000
presidential votes "vanish" in several Florida county.
Back in 2002 Diebold supplied the state of Georgia with brand new
electronic voting machines. That was when incumbent Democratic
Governor Ray Barnes was defeated and the Republicans won for the
first time in 134 years. The poll results showed an amazing 12-point
shift that took place in the last 48 hours.
Diebold was subsequently sued for applying a last-minute code patch
to the machines that was never reviewed. In another strange turn of
events, that code was also deleted right after the election and the
suit fell through.
Earlier this year California sued Diebold for fraud and decertified
its voting machines.
Check this out - No less than 5 of Diebold's developers are
convicted felons, including Senior Vice President Jeff Dean, and
topping the list are his twenty-three counts of felony Theft in the
First Degree. According to the findings of fact in case no. 89-1-
04034-1:
"Defendant's thefts occurred over a 2 1/2 year period of time, there
were multiple incidents, more than the standard range can account
for, the actual monetary loss was substantially greater than typical
for the offense, the crimes and their cover-up involved a high
degree of sophistication and planning in the use and alteration of
records in the computerized accounting system that defendant
maintained for the victim, and the defendant used his position of
trust and fiduciary responsibility as a computer systems and
accounting consultant for the victim to facilitate the commission of
the offenses."
To sum up, he was convicted of 23 felony counts of theft from by -
get this - planting back doors in his software and using a "high
degree of sophistication" to evade detection. Do you trust computer
systems designed by this man? Is trust important in electronic
voting systems?
Sequoia America's second largest voting corporation is Sequoia Voting
Systems. This company is owned by the British company De La Rue,
who also owns 20% of the British National Lottery. In 1995 the SEC
filed suit against Sequoia for inflating revenue and pre-tax profits.
In 1999 charges were filed by the Justice Department against Sequoia
in a massive corruption case that sent top Louisiana state officials to
jail for bribery, most of it funneled through the Mob. Sequoia's
executives were given immunity in exchange for testimony against
state officials.
9. How Easy It Is to Change the Vote
At greater risk than the individual touch screens are the Central
Voting Tabulation computers, which compile the results from many
other systems, such as touch screens and optically scanned cards.
From a hacker's standpoint, there are a couple of reasons why these
central computers are better targets:
a. It is extremely labor intensive to compromise a large number of
systems, and the chance of failure or being detected increases every
time an attack is attempted. Also, the controversy surrounding the
touch screen terminals ensures that their results will be closely
watched, and this theory has been born out in recent days.
b. If one were to compromise the individual terminals, they would
only be able to influence a few hundred to maybe a couple of
thousand votes. These factors create a very poor risk/reward ratio,
which is a key factor in determining which systems it makes sense to
attack.
c. On the other hand, the Central Vote Tabulation systems are a very
inviting target – by simply compromising one Windows desktop, you
could potentially influence tens or hundreds of thousands of votes,
with only one attack to execute and only one attack to erase your
tracks after. This makes for an extremely attractive target,
particularly when one realizes that by compromising these machines
you can affect the votes that people cast not only by the new touch
screen systems, but also voters using traditional methods, such as
optical scanning systems since the tallies from all of these systems
are brought together for Centralized Tabulation. This further helps
an attacker stay under the radar and avoid detection, since scrutiny
will not be as focused on the older systems, even though the vote
data is still very much at risk since it is all brought together at
a few critical points. This also has been born out by early
investigations, where the touch screen results seem to be fairly in
line with expectations, while some very strange results are being
reported in precincts still using some of the older methods.
10. Why Votes Do Not Match Exit Polls
There are numerous examples in Florida and Ohio where the votes
do not match the exit polls but only in those precincts where
electronic voting machines with no paper trail were being used. All
of these discrepancies are in favor of George Bush by five to 15%
despite many of the precincts having a strong Democratic majority.
In those precincts where there was a machine with a "paper trail",
the exit polls matched almost exactly the actual vote.
11. The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy --by Steven F. Freeman,
Ph.D.
"As much as we can say in social science that something is
impossible, it is impossible that the discrepancies between
predicted and actual vote counts in the three critical battleground
states [Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania] of the 2004 election could
have been due to chance or random error... The likelihood of any two
of these statistical anomalies occurring together is on the order of
one-in-a-million. The odds against all three occurring together are
250 million to one. As much as we can say in social science that
something is impossible, it is impossible that the discrepancies
between predicted and actual vote counts in the three critical
battleground states of the 2004 election could have been due to
chance or random error."
12. Conservatives see a conspiracy here: They think the exit
polls were rigged.
Dick Morris, the infamous political consultant to the first Clinton
campaign who became a Republican consultant and Fox News regular,
wrote an article for The Hill, the publication read by every
political junkie in Washington, DC, in which he made a couple of
brilliant points.
"Exit Polls are almost never wrong," Morris wrote. "They eliminate
the two major potential fallacies in survey research by correctly
separating actual voters from those who pretend they will cast
ballots but never do and by substituting actual observation for
guesswork in judging the relative turnout of different parts of the
state."
He added: "So, according to ABC-TVs exit polls, for example, Kerry
was slated to carry Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and
Iowa, all of which Bush carried. The only swing state the network
had going to Bush was West Virginia, which the president won by 10
points."
Yet a few hours after the exit polls were showing a clear Kerry
sweep, as the computerized vote numbers began to come in from the
various states the election was called for Bush.
13. Pre-Election Polls Were "Unexplainably Wrong" in the
2002 Midterm Elections and the Exit Polls Became Not
Operational at the Last Minute
The 2002 mid-term elections were viewed as a grand triumph for
George W. Bush since he ostensibly "defied" the tradition that
incumbent chief executives suffer losses in such contests.
In Minnesota Democrats were united behind Walter Mondale
as a replacement for the recently deceased Senator Paul Wellstone,
who had perished in a plane crash, against Democrat turned Republican
Norm Coleman.
After some tough moments Wellstone had weathered well-financed
Republican onslaughts to secure a lead in the polls before his tragic
demise.
Those same polls found Mondale maintaining a lead going into Election
Day, upon which a big surprise was recorded and Coleman emerged
the winner Republican Senator Wayne Allard was running behind in
Colorado with the momentum going in the other direction. When the
results were revealed he, like Coleman, had won in a final surge that
the pollsters failed to detect. The identical phenomenon occurred in
New Hampshire, where popular Governor Jean Shaheen, who had
been on Al Gore's short list for the vice presidency in 2000, appeared
on her way to the U.S. Senate. The pollsters were once more revealed
to be dramatically wrong as John Sununu Jr. pulled through with another
one of those 2002 Republican final surges to nip his opponent at the wire.
The most widely observed case of Republicans seemingly clutching
victory from the jaws of defeat occurred in Georgia. This is the
state where Karl Rove enticed lackluster Congressman Saxby
Chambliss to run against Vietnam War hero and incumbent Senator
Max Cleland. Despite shameful television ads showing Cleland
alongside Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden the incumbent
appeared to have weathered the storm and was ahead in the polls,
as was Democratic Governor Roy Barnes. On Election Day the
Republicans had scored two more of those amazing come from
behind victories in the face of negative poll forecasts as Chambliss
and Republican gubernatorial candidate Sonny Perdue both won.
John Zogby had proven himself to be one of the nation's most
reliable pollsters in 2000, when he correctly analyzed Gore's final
surge and ultimate victory in the popular vote category, as well as
in the Electoral College but for the fraudulent efforts of Jeb Bush
and Katherine Harris in Florida and the decision of the U.S. Supreme
Court majority in Bush vs. Gore, in which Federalist Society partisans
Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas refused to recuse themselves
despite conflicts of interest.
It is interesting to note that the usually reliable Zogby along with
some of his professional colleagues, who had followed the
aforementioned senate races closely, were mysteriously off by
margins as high as 10 to 13 percent. These key races made the
difference as Republicans took control of the United States Senate
and Bush was saluted for his successful barnstorming on behalf of
Republican candidates.
Only 50,000 votes nationally kept the Democrats from controlling both
the House and the Senate in the 2002 elections. On election eve there
were (depending on which source you use) either thirteen or sixteen
House and Senate races still too close to call. In all cases, the last
polls before election day showed the Democratic candidates leading.
In all cases the Republican candidates won. This was an election first,
according to some election historians, and polling experts consulted
say they can't recall a time when the polls called all the close races
in an election wrong.
To compound the problems of the inaccurate polls and lack of paper trails
to refer back to, on the morning of election day the exit polling company
owned by a consortium of media news giants (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox, MSNBC
among others) which has been providing exit polls on national elections for
years, suddenly announced there would be no exit polls done on this election
because "apparent quirks in our new software are providing anomalous results."
The lack of exit polls eliminates the one source of data which might be used
to validate reported vote totals; i.e., if in exit polls sixty eight percent
say they voted for candidate A and the vote counts only show candidate A getting
forty two percent of the vote, the discrepancy would be cause for investigation.
Finally, a visit to votewatch.us (a web site created to be a repository for reports
of voting problems across the U.S.) reveals an extensive nationwide pattern of
problems with the vote count in 2002, ranging from a Texas race where the Republican
candidate's win in a Democratic district was overturned after a suspicious election
director demanded new machine chips be installed and recounted the vote coming up
this time with a Democratic landslide, to numerous reports of voters in Florida
trying to vote an all Democratic ticket on the new touch screen machines, and
having their votes register as all Republican instead. One lady reported poll
workers had her try four machines before her all Democratic vote was accepted.
Meanwhile, she said, the other machines continued to be used for voting.
There were no reports of voters trying to vote all Republican and having
their votes recorded as all Democratic.
The combination of these concerns provides compelling circumstantial evidence
for the existence of at least a possibility that the outcomes of the 2002
elections were shaped by partisan electronic manipulation of the vote count.
14. Exit Poll Company Replaced in 2004
Until recently, the major American corporate infomedia networks
(ABC,CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox, and AP) relied on a consortium known
as the Voter News Service for vote-counting and exit poll information. But
following the scandals and consequent embarrassments of the 2000
and 2002 elections, this consortium was disbanded. It was replaced
in 2004 by a partnership of Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International
known as the National Election Pool.
15. Exit Polls Were Fiddled With on November 2
One of the clear indicators of massive electoral fraud was the wide
divergence, both nationally and in swing states, between exit poll
results and the reported vote tallies. The major villains, it would seem,
were the suppliers of touch-screen voting machines. There appears to
be evidence, however, that the corporations responsible for assembling
vote-counting and exit poll information may also have been complicit in
the fraud.
The National Election Pool's own data—as transmitted by CNN on the
evening of November 2 and the early morning of November 3—suggest
very strongly that the results of the exit polls were themselves fiddled late
on November 2 in order to make their numbers conform with the tabulated
vote tallies.
It is important to remember how large the discrepancy was between
the early vote tallies and the early exit poll figures. By the time
polls were closing in the eastern states, the vote-count figures published
by CNN showed Bush leading Kerry by a massive 11 percent margin.
At 8:50 p.m. EST, Bush was credited with 6,590,476 votes, and Kerry
with 5,239,414. This margin gradually shrank. By 9:00 p.m., Bush
purportedly had 8,284,599 votes, and Kerry 6,703,874; by 9:06 p.m.,
Bush had 9,257,135, and Kerry had 7,652,510, giving the incumbent
a 9 percent lead, with 54 percent of the vote to Kerry's 45 percent.
The early exit polls appear to have caused some concern to the good
people at the National Election Pool: a gap of 12 or 14 percent
between tallied results and exit polls can hardly inspire confidence
in the legitimacy of an election.
One can surmise that instructions of two sorts were issued. The
election-massagers working for Diebold, ES&S (Election Systems &
Software) and the other suppliers of black-box voting machines may
have been told to go easy on their manipulations of back-door `
Democrat-Delete' software: mere victory was what the Bush
campaign wanted, not an implausible landslide. And the number
crunchers at the National Election Pool may have been asked to
fix up those awkward exit polls.
Fix them they did. When the national exit polls were last updated,
at 1:36 a.m. EST on November 3, men's votes (still 46 percent of the
total) had gone 54 percent to Bush, 45 percent to Kerry, and 1 percent
to Nader; women's votes (54 percent of the total) had gone 47 percent
to Bush, 52 percent to Kerry, and 1 percent to Nader.
But how do we know the fix was in? Because the exit poll data also
included the total number of respondents. At 9:00 p.m. EST, this
number was well over 13,000; by 1:36 a.m. EST on November 3
it had risen by less than 3 percent, to a final total of 13, 531 respondents—
but with a corresponding swing of 5 percent from Kerry to Bush in
voters' reports of their choices. Given the increase in respondents,
a swing of this size is a mathematical impossibility.
The same pattern is evident in the exit polls of two key swing
states, Ohio and Florida.
At 7:32 p.m. EST, CNN was reporting the following exit poll data for
Ohio. Women voters (53 percent of the total) favored Kerry over
Bush by 53 percent to 47 percent; male voters (47 percent of the total)
preferred Kerry over Bush by 51 percent to 49 percent. Kerry was
thus leading Bush by a little more than 4 percent. But by 1:41 a.m. EST
on November 3, when the exit poll was last updated, a dramatic shift
had occurred: women voters had split 50-50 in their preferences for
Kerry and Bush, while men had swung to supporting Bush over Kerry
by 52 percent to 47 percent. The final exit polls showed Bush leading
in Ohio by 2.5 percent.
At 7:32 p.m., there were 1,963 respondents; at 1:41 a.m. on November
3, there was a final total of 2,020 respondents. These fifty-seven
additional respondents must all have voted very powerfully for Bush—
for while representing only a 2.8 percent increase in the number of
respondents, they managed to produce a swing from Kerry to Bush
of fully 6.5 percent.
In Florida, the exit polls appear to have been tampered with in a
similar manner. At 8:40 p.m. EST, CNN was reporting exit polls that
showed Kerry and Bush in a near dead heat. Women voters (54
percent of the total) preferred Kerry over Bush by 52 percent to 48
percent, while men (46 percent of the total) preferred Bush over
Kerry by 52 percent to 47 percent, with 1 percent of their votes
going to Nader. But the final update of the exit poll, made at 1:01 a.m.
EST on November 3, showed a different pattern: women voters now
narrowly preferred Bush over Kerry, by 50 percent to 49 percent,
while the men preferred Bush by 53 percent to 46 percent, with
1 percent of the vote still going to Nader. These figures gave Bush
a 4 percent lead over Kerry.
The number of exit poll respondents in Florida had risen only from
2,846 to 2,862. But once again, a powerful numerical magic was at
work. A mere sixteen respondents—0.55 percent of the total number
—produced a four percent swing to Bush.
What we are witnessing, the evidence would suggest, is a late-night
contribution by the National Elections Pool to the rewriting of
history.
16. Republicans Attempt to Explain Discrepancies in Exit
Polls and Actual Vote
Despite all kinds of promises to fix things so that the 2004
presidential election could go off without major hitches, what
occurred was a malicious mix combining the worst of the
2000 and 2002 scenarios. When the exit polls proved to be
highly errant in key battleground states such as Ohio and
Florida the mainstream media simplistically explained that
Bush voters had demonstrated a greater reluctance to talk to
pollsters than did Kerry supporters.
This argument sounds as convincing as the one Republicans made in
2000 that the reason why so many chads were spat out in Florida did not
relate to the age and unreliability of the machines, but because
large numbers of voters decided at the last second to not vote for
president, resulting in half-hearted stabs at the paper before them.
The same media that recited this nonsense repeatedly, as long as
James Baker could say it with a straight face, is now attacking Internet
critics citing corruption in the 2004 vote as "spreadsheet conspiracy
theorists."
The latest effort in the feeble mainstream media assault occurred
today when the Miami Herald published an article contending that
Bush really did carry Florida by securing Democratic votes in the
traditionally conservative northern tier of the state. CNN Online
immediately picked up the story and ran it. The information was
meant to refute the contention that Bush's total was inflated by
the new touch screen voting machines used in the Sunshine
State. The story covered three small counties with four digit
figures as part of a smokescreen dodge to avoid the harsh
reality that something was truly amiss in the 2004 Florida
presidential count.
When Robert Parry of the ConsortiumNews.com site recently
noted that Bush had what appeared to be highly inflated vote
totals in the heavily Democratic southern counties of Palm
Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade, the Washington Post
criticized him and fuzzed up the process by using the same
argument posed today in the Miami Herald. Bush had won
because of his strength among conservative Democratic
elements in the state's northern tier.
Parry immediately rebutted the article by pointing out that his
survey had deliberately avoided the state's notably conservative
north with its smaller population and concentrated on the traditionally
vote rich Democratic counties concentrated near Miami. In this connection it
has been reported that Bush may have received some 130,000 to 260,000
unaccounted for votes in the state's southern region. Where did these
votes come from?
The reason why the media seeks to shift the focus to the state's
northern section is that it is far easier to bootstrap the Bush
victory alongside Karl Rove's frequently repeated goal of adding
some four million votes from the 2000 total from conservative
Christian evangelicals.From the clumsy manner in which the
mainstream media seeks to take Robert Parry and others to
task for pointing out voting discrepancies it is obvious that no
solid foundation exists supporting the alleged Bush- voting surge.
On Election Night Ken Mehlman significantly crowed not about
Republican gains in the north but in the south, especially along
the Interstate 4 tier known as the I-4 Corridor. His effusiveness
was sought to spin optimism for a Florida victory, but in focusing
on this area the question once more surfaces: Where did this
sudden surge of Bush votes come from? Meanwhile in Democratic
stronghold Broward County the new Bush-appointed Supervisor
of Elections, Brenda Snipes, announced shortly before the
November 2 election that over 90,000 absentee ballots had not
been sent out. This discovery came after her office had been
flooded with calls from concerned voters who had not received
their absentee ballots.
Snipes eventually appealed to Secretary of State Glenda Hood in
Tallahassee to resolve the problem. What happened? We do know,
however, that Hood is wearing Katherine Harris's old mantle well.
She helped Jeb Bush prepare another "felon list" to disqualify
African American voters, just as her predecessor had infamously
done four years ago. There was another sea of "spoiled votes"
tossed into receptacles. Guess where they predominantly came
from? If you said African American precincts you are one hundred
percent correct.
Greg Palast uncovered the Florida fraud involving Jeb Bush and
Katherine Harris four years ago. Significantly, his reporting came
from the BBC and not an American outpost, since the mainstream
media turned deaf when he came calling. After investigating the
2004 election he announced that Kerry had won both Ohio and
New Mexico. Palast noted that the "spoiled vote" discard piles
were awesome in both states, with African American precincts
singled out in Ohio and Hispanics from predominantly Democratic
voting stations debited in New Mexico.
17. Some Hard Cold Facts
80% of all votes in America are counted by only
two companies: Diebold and ES&S.
There is no federal agency with regulatory authority or
oversight of the U.S. voting machine industry.
The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S
are brothers.
The chairman and CEO of Diebold is a major Bush campaign
organizer and donor who wrote in 2003 that he was "committed to
helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president
next year."
35% of ES&S is owned by Republican Senator Chuck Hagel,
who became Senator based on votes counted by ES&S machines.
Diebold's new touch screen voting machines have no paper
trail of any votes. In other words, there is no way to verify that
the data coming out of the machine is the same as what was
legitimately put in by voters.
Diebold also makes ATMs, checkout scanners, and ticket
machines, all of which log each transaction and can generate a paper
trail.
Diebold is based in Ohio and supplies almost all the voting
machines there.
None of the international election observers were allowed in
the polls in Ohio.
30% of all U.S. votes are carried out on unverifiable touch
screen voting machines.
Bush's Help America Vote Act of 2002 has as its goal to
replace all machines with the new electronic touch screen systems.
Republican Senator Chuck Hagel owns 35% of ES&S and was caught
lying about it.
ES&S is the largest voting machine manufacturer in the U.S. and
counts almost 60% of all U.S. votes.
Exit polls for the 2004 elections were accurate within 1% or
less in areas where ballot machines were used.
Major exit poll data discrepancies were noted in counties where
touch screen machines were used, especially in Ohio and Florida .
18. Conclusion
The above are the lines that connect the dots of the Bush Conspiracy
to steal this election. As Fox News' "fair and balanced" Bill
O'Reilly says repeatedly "we report, you decide".
Well, go ahead and decide. If you decide that George Bush is
guilty, then we all must act now or else there will be no next time.