| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2003/11/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:11007 Activity:high |
11/10 Sigh...If only those votes could have been recounted...
http://www.moveon.org/gore/speech.html
\_ Does no one else see the irony of a site called "Move On" is carrying
a speech from Gore whining about Election 2000?
\_ This speech isn't about Election 2k. Does no else see the
irony of opinionated windbags on the motd that post about
URLs without looking at them?
\_ Sigh, if only Gore had pushed for a statewide recount instead of
cherry picking heavily Democratic districts.... Had he pushed for
that on day one instead of trying to be clever, there wouldn't have
been any Constitutional questions to raise.
\_ They were... and in every recount by the major media outlets
Bush WON. Sour grapes I suppose, but don't let the rule of law
get in your way.
\_ Except for all the ones where he didn't... I guess that can
be true if you're very selective about how you define
"major", huh? Did they discuss the last-minute
disenfranchisement of 90,000 black voters in those nicely
impartial major media reports? Don't let facts get in your way.
\_ They could not identify one, not one. If they
could you better believe it would plastered over the entire
front page of every newspaper. Please, give me any name.
There was a commission that investigated this, they found
nothing. And please, don't give unsubstantiated
demagoguery by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. The irony
here is that is all of these purported districts the
election was run Democrats.
\_ Cathy Jackson. Donnise DeSouze. Angenora Ramsey. That
enough? If you want more, read
http://digital.library.miami.edu/gov/voting.html
\_ The report was very damning of the Republicans:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/08/florida.vote
\_ The rolls are statewide, but nice try. Care to name
your sage commission or maybe make up more stuff?
\_ Read the report, did you even bother to read
it??? They give no accounts of individuals
who wanted to vote but were unable, NOT ONE.
Just anecdotal evidence blah blah blah.
Here's the worst they can say from the
abstract:
"Potential voters confronted inexperienced
poll workers, antiquated machinery,
inaccessible polling locations, and other
barriers to being able to exercise their
right to vote."
\_ I read the entire report and I agree with the
CNN summary of it, not yours.
\_ Then please, give me the name of
one of the 90,000. Just one is all I ask.
I'm not talking about someone who was
too stupid to fill out the ballot
properly, rather some one who was
prevented from voting.
\_ Keep begging you racist right wing
fascist! We won't give up one, not one
victim for you to hunt down and destroy!
\_ So since you cant produce one
you resort to thinly veiled
threats. Ah yes, the Left.
Nice display of reason and
rational thought.
Let me see if I understand
your argument: the Democrat
constituency in these districts
are too stupid to fill out
votes properly. Nefariously,
the Democrat controlled
canvasing boards in these
districts purposely
undercounted the said votes to
hurt Gore.
Is this your contention?
Do you have a personal stake
in this... were you one
the said voters? I just don't
understand.
\_ http://csua.org/u/4y7
includes five. Are you really
a leftist pretending
to be a dumb right winger?
\_ Even a casual google search turns up
dozens. Johnny Jackson Jr, is one
a retired cleric.
\_ Did these three people try to vote?
This is not disenfranchisement,
it is a clerical mistake. Even
the article admits more whites
were removed than blacks. Sorry
try again. Somehow it seems
you guys still came out ahead.
Hundreds of felons cast votes
illegally
http://csua.org/u/4y8
\_ Not even close to true. A full recount of Florida would have
given the state to Gore:
http://democrats.com/view.cfm?id=2300
But I guess the New York Times and Miami Herald don't
qualify as "major" in your book, right?
\_ LOL your article contradicts itself. Somehow every
newspaper they list lied in its headline?? From the
article:
"And why did the New York Times report:
"An Analysis of Florida Balloting Favors Bush""
Even the leftwing NYT disagrees with you.
\_ "Leftwing NYT"? You crack me up. Read the NYT
article. NYT is mildly left of center, at best.
Any publically traded corporation with billions
in revenue is never going to be left wing, but you are
such an extremist, you don't realize that. Thanks for
reminding me of the 2000 rip-off. I am going to go
donate another $500 to the Dean campaign. |
| 5/24 |
|
| www.moveon.org/gore/speech.html Now, whoever is in custody has to assume that the government is always listening to consultations between them and their lawyers. Does it matter if the government listens in on everything you say to your lawyer? Or, to take another change - and thanks to the librarians, more people know about this one - the FBI now has the right to go into any library and ask for the records of everybody who has used the library and get a list of who is reading what. Similarly, the FBI can demand all the records of banks, colleges, hotels, hospitals, credit-card companies, and many more kinds of companies. Just last week, Attorney General Ashcroft issued brand new guidelines permitting FBI agents to run credit checks and background checks and gather other information about anyone who is of investigatory interest, - meaning anyone the agent thinks is suspicious - without any evidence of criminal behavior. Listen to the way Israel s highest court dealt with a similar question when, in 1999, it was asked to balance due process rights against dire threats to the security of its people: This is the destiny of democracy, as not all means are acceptable to it, and not all practices employed by its enemies are open before it. Although a democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back, it nonetheless has the upper hand. Preserving the Rule of Law and recognition of an individuals liberty constitutes an important component in its understanding of security. I want to challenge the Bush Administrations implicit assumption that we have to give up many of our traditional freedoms in order to be safe from terrorists. In fact, in my opinion, it makes no more sense to launch an assault on our civil liberties as the best way to get at terrorists than it did to launch an invasion of Iraq as the best way to get at Osama Bin Laden. In both cases they have recklessly put our country in grave and unnecessary danger, while avoiding and neglecting obvious and much more important challenges that would actually help to protect the country. In both cases, the administration has fostered false impressions and misled the nation with superficial, emotional and manipulative presentations that are not worthy of American Democracy. In both cases they have exploited public fears for partisan political gain and postured themselves as bold defenders of our country while actually weakening not strengthening America . In both cases, they have used unprecedented secrecy and deception in order to avoid accountability to the Congress, the Courts, the press and the people. Indeed, this Administration has turned the fundamental presumption of our democracy on its head. A government of and for the people is supposed to be generally open to public scrutiny by the people - while the private information of the people themselves should be routinely protected from government intrusion. But instead, this Administration is seeking to conduct its work in secret even as it demands broad unfettered access to personal information about American citizens. Under the rubric of protecting national security, they have obtained new powers to gather information from citizens and to keep it secret. Yet at the same time they themselves refuse to disclose information that is highly relevant to the war against terrorism. They are even arrogantly refusing to provide information about 9/11 that is in their possession to the 9/11 Commission the lawful investigative body charged with examining not only the performance of the Bush Administration, but also the actions of the prior Administration in which I served. The whole point is to learn all we can about preventing future terrorist attacks, Two days ago, the Commission was forced to issue a subpoena to the Pentagon, which has disgracefully put Secretary Rumsfelds desire to avoid embarrassment ahead of the nations need to learn how we can best avoid future terrorist attacks. The Commission also served notice that it will issue a subpoena to the White House if the President continues to withhold information essential to the investigation. And the White House is also refusing to respond to repeated bipartisan Congressional requests for information about 9/11 even though the Congress is simply exercising its Constitutional oversight authority. In the words of Senator McCain, Excessive administration secrecy on issues related to the September 11 attacks feeds conspiracy theories and reduces the publics confidence in government. In a revealing move, just three days ago, the White House asked the Republican leadership of the Senate to shut down the Intelligence Committees investigation of 9/11 based on a trivial political dispute. Apparently the President is anxious to keep the Congress from seeing what are said to have been clear, strong and explicit warnings directly to him a few weeks before 9/11 that terrorists were planning to hijack commercial airliners and use them to attack us. Astonishingly, the Republican Senate leadership quickly complied with the Presidents request. And even as they claim the right to see the private bank records of every American, they are adopting a new policy on the Freedom of Information Act that actively encourages federal agencies to fully consider all potential reasons for non-disclosure regardless of whether the disclosure would be harmful. In other words, the federal government will now actively resist complying with ANY request for information. Moreover, they have established a new exemption that enables them to refuse the release to the press and the public of important health, safety and environmental information submitted to the government by businesses merely by calling it critical infrastructure. By closely guarding information about their own behavior, they are dismantling a fundamental element of our system of checks and balances. Because so long as the governments actions are secret, they cannot be held accountable. A government for the people and by the people must be transparent to the people. The administration is justifying the collection of all this information by saying in effect that it will make us safer to have it. But it is not the kind of information that would have been of much help in preventing 9/11. However, there was in fact a great deal of specific information that WAS available prior to 9/11 that probably could have been used to prevent the tragedy. Both names were then on a State Department/INS watch list called TIPOFF. Both men were sought by the FBI and CIA as suspected terrorists, in part because they had been observed at a terrorist meeting in Malaysia . These two passenger names would have been exact matches when checked against the TIPOFF list. Checking for common addresses address information is widely available, including on the internet, analysts would have discovered that Salem Al-Hazmi who also bought a seat on American 77 used the same address as Nawaq Alhazmi. More importantly, they could have discovered that Mohamed Atta American 11, North Tower of the World Trade Center and Marwan Al-Shehhi United 175, South Tower of the World Trade Center used the same address as Khalid Al-Midhar. Checking for identical frequent flier numbers, analysts would have discovered that Majed Moqed American 77 used the same number as Al-Midhar. With Mohamed Atta now also identified as a possible associate of the wanted terrorist, Al-Midhar, analysts could have added Attas phone numbers also publicly available information to their checklist. By doing so they would have identified five other hijackers Fayez Ahmed, Mohand Alshehri, Wail Alsheri, and Abdulaziz Alomari. Closer to September 11, a further check of passenger lists against a more innocuous INS watch list for expired visas would have identified Ahmed Alghandi. Through him, the same sort of relatively simple correlations could have led to identifying the remaining hijackers, who boarded United 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania . In addition, Al-Midhar and Nawaf Alhamzi, the two who were on the terrorist watch list, rented an apartment in San Diego under their own names and were listed, again under their own names, in the San Diego phone book while th... |
| digital.library.miami.edu/gov/voting.html Commission on Civil Rights released this report on voting irregularities in Florida. The Commission held three days of hearings in each of Miami and Tallahassee and heard testimony from over 100 witnesses. Problems with voter lists used at various precincts caused significant voter disenfranchisement, particularly among African-Americans. One Miami-Dade poll worker lamented, "By far this was the worst election I have ever experienced. |
| www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/08/florida.vote -> www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/08/florida.vote/ Commission on Civil Rights approved Friday a controversial investigative report that found the 2000 presidential race in Florida was marred by "injustice, ineptitude and inefficiency" that disenfranchised minority voters. The vote to approve the report was 6-2, with two members -- one Republican and one independent -- sharply dissenting. Commissioners Russell Redenbaugh and Abigail Thernstrom issued a statement saying the report was based on "faulty analysis" and relied on "vague and unsubstantiated claims" about problems with the 2000 Florida vote. On Friday, while in Miami announcing he will seek re-election, Republican Gov. Jeb Bush joined the chorus, noting Florida's legislature had already pushed through a comprehensive package of reforms. Among the practices criticized in the report was an effort to purge convicted felons and other ineligible voters from registration roles. Lists of ineligible voters, compiled by a private firm, had an error rate of at least 14 percent, and black voters had a "significantly greater chance" of appearing on the inaccurate lists than white voters, the report said. Also, the report found that black voters were nine times more likely than white voters to have their ballots rejected during the counting process. Faulty voting systems were more likely to be used in areas with higher percentages of minority voters, but even in counties where the voting systems were the same, black voters still had a higher rejection rate than white voters, the report said. Under the election reform package passed by the legislature and signed by Bush, all of Florida's 67 counties will have to use optical scanners or other advanced voting methods in future elections, rather than punch cards, voting machines or paper ballots. Find 43 Back to the top 2003 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. |
| csua.org/u/4y7 -> www.investigate911.com/voterfraud.htm But however one reads the ballots, Bush's win would certainly have been jeopardized had not some Floridians been barred from casting ballots at all. Between May 1999 and Election Day 2000, two Florida secretaries of state - Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris, both protges of Governor Jeb Bush- ordered 57,700 "ex-felons," who are prohibited from voting by state law, to be removed from voter rolls. If the hope was that DBT would enable Florida to exclude more voters, then the state appears to have spent its money wisely. Together the lists comprised nearly 1 percent of Floridas electorate and nearly 3 percent of its African-American voters. Neither DBT nor the state conducted any further research to verify the matches. According to Floridas elections division, this intrepid time-traveler will cover his tracks by moving to Ohio, adding a middle name, and changing his race. Madison County's elections supervisor Linda Howell refused the purge list after she found her own name on it. Willie Dixon , seventy, was guilty of a crime in his youth; After the election, Harris and her elections chief Clay Roberts, testified under oath that verifying the lists was solely the work of county supervisors. When I asked Roberts about the contract during an interview for BBC television, Roberts ripped of his microphone, ran into his office, locked the door, and called in state troopers to remove us. But even if they were the same man, removing him from Floridas voter rolls is an unconstitutional act. Constitution forbids states to revoke any civil rights that a citizen has been granted by another state; Nevertheless, at least 2,873 voters were wrongly removed, a purge authorized by a September 18, 2000 letter to counties from Governor Bush's clemency office. Commission of Civil Rights began investigating the matters, Bush's office issued a new letter allowing these persons to vote; DBT claims it warned officials "a significant number of people who were not a felon would be included on the list"; In defiance, Harris has rebuffed the counties and hired another firm, just in time for Jeb Bush's reelection fight this fall. |
| democrats.com/view.cfm?id=2300 Email to Friend Media Lies Once Again to Declare Bush the Winner Bob Fertik "If you count every vote, Gore wins." So says Doug Hattaway, a former Gore campaign spokesman. Amazingly, they came from the Miami Herald/USA Today recount. Read carefully from the Herald's lead story: "Had all canvassing boards in all counties examined all undervotes, thousands of votes would have been salvaged in Broward County, Palm Beach County and elsewhere long before the election dispute landed in court -- and the outcome might have been different, The Herald found. "In that scenario, under the most inclusive standard, Gore might have won Florida's election -- and the White House -- by 393 votes, The Herald found. If dimples were counted as votes only when other races were dimpled, Gore would have won by 299 votes. "But if ballots were counted as votes only when a chad was detached by at least two corners (the standard most commonly used nationally), Bush would have won by 352 votes." Under two out of three scenarious - depending on exactly how you count hanging chads - Gore wins. So why did the Miami Herald's headline read: "Florida Results: Ballot Review Shows Bush Retaining Lead" And why did USA Today declare: "Newspapers' Recount Shows Bush Prevailed In Fla. Vote" And why did the New York Times report: "An Analysis of Florida Balloting Favors Bush" Why? Because after they counted ALL of the dimpled and hanging chads, the Herald and USA Today decided to highlight only SOME of the results. In journalism, there's a four-letter word for that kind of reporting: BIAS. Once again, the media has rushed to declare Bush the winner - regardless of the will of the American people, as expressed through their votes. The section quoted above, which describes how Gore wins by counting every vote, was buried deep within the Herald's long article. But compared to USA Today and the New York Times, the Miami Herald is a paragon of journalistic virtue. That's because USA Today didn't even MENTION Gore's count-every-vote victory. Here is the article that EVERY citizen of America should read. In fact, you really have to go out of your way to find it. Let me rewrite the headline: ACCORDING TO FLORIDA LAW, BALLOTS REJECTED BY COUNTING MACHINES MUST BE COUNTED MANUALLY - AND IF FLORIDA OFFICIALS HAD FOLLOWED THE LAW, GORE WOULD HAVE WON Say what? Read this carefully: "A revision of Florida's election code in the 1970s calls for county officials to inspect any 'damaged or defective' ballot that cannot be tabulated by machine. It applies to the procedure election officials must follow ON ELECTION DAY as they count the votes. In plain English: if a counting machine spits out a ballot, election officials are required to examine it to determine the intent of the voter. A "scanner" is the optical reader used to tally the SAT-style optical ballots. According to the Herald, Gore gained 319 votes from optical ballots - more than enough to overcome Bush's 154 vote lead as determined by the Florida Supreme Court. If the "scanner" principle is extended to punch-card counters - which is perfectly obvious as a matter of legal analysis - then Gore gains another 1,004 votes. So why didn't county officials manually count these machine-unreadable ballots on election day, as the law requires? Because they simply ignored the law, with the blessing of Republican election officials. "Canvassing boards in most of Florida routinely ignore that provision of state law because they maintain they are only required to examine unreadable ballots if there is machine error, not voter error. But Clay Roberts, a Republican who heads the Florida Division of Elections and sides with the canvassing boards' policy, acknowledges that past practice may not match state law." Florida's Republican election officials - Clay Roberts, Katherine Harris, and Jeb Bush - are militant enforcers of the laws that favor Republicans. For example, while the nation was watching, Harris refused to accept the full Palm Beach recount because it arrived two hours late after a Thanksgiving break. But when laws favor Democrats, Harris and Roberts suddenly flip. For example, Harris and Roberts refused to obey laws and court orders requiring them to allow ex-felons to vote, if they served their prison time in states where released felons regain their voting rights automatically. This contempt of the law prevented 3,000 Floridians from voting, most of whom would have voted for Gore according to studies of similar voters. Harris and Roberts also refused to obey laws requiring them to accurately identify felons before removing voters from the rolls. Instead, they instructed their vendor to do a deliberately sloppy job, which resulted in "felon" lists that were as much as 95% inaccurate. As many as 22,000 voters may have been disqualified by this illegal purge. In Seminole and Martin Counties, Republican officials refused to obey laws requiring voters to submit complete absentee ballot applications. Instead, they allowed Republican operatives to illegally complete thousands of applications that were incomplete. In order to declare Bush the winner, the Republican majority had to completely ignore its core principles on states' rights and equal protection - and to willfully misinterpret the December 18 deadline as a December 12 deadline, thereby blocking a state-wide recount as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. In 1999, the nation endured the impeachment of the President of the United States on the basis of a simple principle articulated by Henry Hyde: "The law is the law." It is now clearer than ever that Republicans believe "the law is the law" only when it favors Republicans. When it favors Democrats, Republicans simply ignore the law - or break it. And the media simply reports whatever Republicans tell them. Eventually, the truth will come out: George W Bush stole the election, and the corporate media covered up the crime. |