BUSH PLANS NATIONAL VOTE FRAUD IN 2004: A LOOK AT THE 'WAR MAP' EVIDENCE
author: Spartacus
The map of where the voting machines are for 2004 is overlaid on a 10-region block area of predictable voting pattern demographics for the past 30 years. These 10 areas represent how the United States has voted in presidential elections, as blocks, in the past 30 years. This is information that would be common knowledge in any Bush 2004 planning team. What it shows about where the insecure, unverifiable electronic voting machines are: it reveals that Bush is out to get the 2004 vote in a very illegal manner. It reveals that the hideous 'war plan' of the Bushites Neo-cons in power is to introduce electronic voting machine technology only where it will assure a Bush win--in particularly crucial contentious areas—while leaving durable Republican-voting areas as low priority areas for electronic voting machine introduction.
The below article is a description of these 10 durable regional areas, with commentary of how the introduction of voting machine technology differently in them has allowed the option for Bush and his henchmen to remove Bush voter opposition electronically at the polls--through nationally orchestrated vote fraud.
|
BUSH PLANS NATIONAL VOTE FRAUD IN 2004: A LOOK AT THE 'WAR MAP' EVIDENCE
INTRODUCTION
The map of where the voting machines are for 2004 is overlaid on a 10-section geographic block area of voting demographics. These 10 areas represent how the United States has voted in presidential elections, as blocks, in the past 30 years. This is information that would be common knowledge in any Bush 2004 planning team. In terms of what it shows about where the electronic voting machines are, it reveals that Bush is out to get the 2004 vote in a very different and illegal manner. It reveals that the hideous 'war plan' of the Bushites in power is to introduce electronic voting machine technology only where it will assure a Bush win in particularly crucial contentious areas—while leaving durable Republican-voting areas as low priority areas.
The below article is a description of these crucial areas, with commentary of how the introduction of voting machine technology will allow the option, if it comes to it, of removing Bush opposition electronically at the polls through nationally orchestrated vote fraud.
The map itself and much of its information is based on quotes from the original article published at:
 http://www.massinc.org/commonwealth/new_map_exclusive/ten_regions_index.html
http://www.massinc.org/commonwealth/new_map_exclusive/beyond_red_blue.html
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/01/278685.shtml
First, simply look at the grayed/blacked counties in the map, representing the counties where vote machines have been introduced—particularly during 2000-2004. This is where unverifiable voting machine technology has been specifically introduced under Bush's Neo-con regime. It shows an interesting pattern—a pattern that is only revealed by analyzing how they places typically vote in the past, an analysis that Bush's team under Karl Rove assuredly has done in preparation for November 2004.
I should say, the 10 block area shows a verifiable pattern of how these places used to typically vote in the past. Come 2004, all that is to change because no one can verify anymore—no one can be sure, ever—for the rest of the history of voting in the United States, whether we will be voting at all because unverifiable voting machines will have taken over the vote tallying.
So on the premise: that the voting machine map is only a Bushite "war on democracy" a war plan against us all written up in formal law and novel technologies that explictly have been introduced in swing voting areas and historically Democratic leaning areas. What evidence can we bring to this assertion?
First, the 10 regions are clearly defined, right down to county lines. And alas, so are the unverifiable voting machines in the similar map. This allows us to explore the motivations over 2000-2004 for imposing voting machines across the United States—though as I will show, only in certain areas for political goals based on assumptions about how they would have voted in 2004 based on the past 30 years of voting.
I. OVERVIEW: SIX AREAS
First, let's simply look at the voting machine information, geographically, with that assumption in mind: that it has been planted nationwide only with biased political agendas in mind. First, it is obvious Bush is out to rig the black vote in the Southern Lowlands, particularly in the Black American vote in the state of Georgia. This has been extensively covered elsewhere. Lo and Behold, for example, the strange 'de-election' of the Democratic winner of the Governorship in 2002 and the implanting of the Republican Governor Sonny Perdue. This happened as if on cue in 2002 after the introduction of the first state in the United States. GEORGIA was the first state with TOTAL ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINE COVERAGE. To summarize that story, the actual Democratic winner of the Governorship in 2002 went to sleep that night after the vote had been tallied and certified. He had won his election. He wakes up the next morning, literally in a different state. This state, which still calls itself Georgia, suddenly says that the Republican somehow won the vote tally. This was despite the vote already being certified legally as a Democratic win. This is the first Republican governor of Georgia in over 100 years.
In other words, by looking at the map, Georgia seemed to be a high priority for the Bush crime family to have it vote rigged. This was because of its large Democratic base and its large Black American base. It additionally happened to be in a very contentious swing vote area—the Southern Lowlands—that is crucial for a Bush 'win', (i.e., a vote 'rig'). Once more, this is based on a prediction of how 'blocks' of voters have gone regularly in the past 30 years.
Second, perusing over the war plan map, the Bush crime family is out to rig the eastern side of the Farm Belt.
Third, it shows that the Bush crime family is out to rig the Mexican American vote of New Mexico, part of the western half of the extensive "El Norte" border area voting block area that typically votes together. Yes, the voting machines, county by county, have been introduced only within this EL NOTRE demographic line in New Mexico, sometimes, following the exact outline of the color graph of the predictable voting block.
Fourth, the Bush crime family is out to rig liberal cities in California like Berkeley and San Francisco, including large county blocks of Southern California. California has most of the Electoral College votes.
Fifth, the Bush crime family is out to rig important contentious city votes in Oregon.
Sixth, the Bush crime family is out to rig Central Appalachia.
Now, let's discuss how these areas have verifiably voted in the past, and compare them to how they are going to unverifiably vote in the future. This is unverifiable because because of a regime of privitized proprietary voting machines that allow for systemically orchestrated national vote fraud.
II. DISCUSSION: HOW DID THESE PARTICULAR PLACES VOTE IN THE PAST? AND HOW WILL THEY LIKELY 'VOTE' (I.E., BE RIGGED TO SUPPORT TRAITOROUS NEO-CONS POSING AS REPUBLICANS) USING IMPLANTED UNVERIFIABLE VOTE TECHNOLOGY?
First let's look at the typically solid Republican voting areas. Our predictions would be that this would be a low priority for Bush, Rove, and company to rig the votes here because they would expect that these areas to be secure areas already, hitched as they are by a long history of reflex voting for anyone who claims to be a Republican--even such a bad Neo-con pretending to be a Republican, like Bush.
Three of our regions have voted Republican in every election since 1964.
SAGEBRUSH, which includes most of the Rocky Mountain states and a piece of northern New England;
SOUTHERN COMFORT, which follows the Gulf Coast and reaches up to the Ozarks; and the
FARM BELT, which stretches from Ohio to Nebraska but leapfrogs the Mississippi River.
Yes. None of these areas has any extensive unverifiable voting machine technology—except for small pockets which are the highly urban (Black American) areas of the coasts of Florida and the eastern areas of the Farm Belt area. By the way, Black Americans voted against Bush at the ratio of 9:1 in 2000. Marginalizing Black voters is an important Bush crime family plan for the 2004 election. According to Greg Palast investigations about Florida's rigged vote rosters for the 2000 Bush campaign, racist vote disenfranchisment has certainly been done before by the Bush team.
What about areas that are swing voting areas? These could be areas that lean Republican, but have boosted Democrats from time to time. There are two different areas that fulfil these characteristics:
APPALACHIA, which follows the mountain range from Pennsylvania to Mississippi, supported Jimmy Carter in 1976 but abandoned him in 1980 and backed the GOP ever since. And the
SOUTHERN LOWLANDS, which stretches from Washington, DC, to New Orleans, stayed with Carter in 1980 and supported Clinton twice in the 1990s but rejected northerners Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis, not to mention Gore in 2000.
These swing areas, which are partially Democratic leaning are just the two areas that Bush team is concentrating on rigging the 2004 vote.
A third area, as mentioned before is EL NORTE, which stretches from Los Angeles to Brownsville, Texas, and also includes the Miami area. EL NORTE backed Republican candidates from 1968 through 1988 but more recently supported Clinton and Gore. So, the Bush 'war plan' is to rig the voting machines particularly in the El Norte areas.
Finally, from a strategic perspective, the 10-region model shows each party—Republican or Democrat—where they can (or have to) win in order to take the presidency. In 2000, both parties won four regions each by solid margins; in other words, no amount of politicking was going to change that. However, four isn't enough to win, no matter how much you pump up the vote in your base. As we saw in 2000, even winning the popular vote doesn't do the trick if you can't nail down a fifth region, and a sixth is better still to be sure. Candidates can rack up votes - popular and electoral - by driving up turnout in the regions that like them best, tipping the outcome in states divided by region, or by expansionism like spreading the influence of friendly regions into adjacent territory. Or of course it is a much simpler activity—which is a future investment as well: simply assure that these geographically contestible areas can be rigged to tip the outcome in Bush's favor. These are the THE VERY AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS THE SWING VOTE AREA. Voting machine fraud, always an issue in small areas of the country, is something that Bush (like everything else) wants to see nationalized and put under a stable police state framework.
Many states are split between regions. This means that there are three ways to put a state's electoral votes into a particlular candidate's column. One is to maximize the vote in a region more favorable to the candidate, either by increasing voter turnout there or by increasing the candidate's share of the vote - perhaps through a "bandwagon" effect by which independents accede to the prevailing sentiment in their neighborhood. The second is an expansionist strategy, which spreads the boundaries of one's favorable regions to capture territory from the opposition's geographic base. Indeed, such land grabs are the only way to keep the opposition from winning a fifth region and perhaps sending the election into overtime, as happened in 2000 when Gore narrowly won the Big River region and picked up the electoral votes of Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. And the third solution however is far simpler: simply get private corporations—some of which are top Bush campaign funders (called "Pioneers") like the CEO of Diebold, to promise publicly to "deliver the vote for Bush in 2004." The third solution is simply to get private voting machine companies on your side to (dis)count the votes. Bush and Diebold have done it before. The contested county in Florida, Volusia county, was already a Diebold electronic vote stronghold in 2000. This was the county that in a wink of an eye removed over 10,000 votes from Gore's tally, and placed it on an obscure socialist candidate. And by the way, the only intervening event was the addition of talllies of couty votes that had much less than 10,000 votes to distribute.
Of course, Bush's ability to win—and to rig—a fifth region was crucial to his victory in 2000. This was done by vote machine fraud, vote electoral role fraud, and through intercession by the Supreme Court to stop the legal vote counts in the state of Florida. Actual votes, your votes, were simply discarded as meaningless to the election outcome by the Supreme Court. In the other four regions he 'won' in 2000, Bush easily won. These regions that hadn't supported a Democrat since at least 1976 (Appalachia, the Farm Belt, Sagebrush, and Southern Comfort). Bush narrowly captured Southern Lowlands, which had eluded his father in 1992 and Robert Dole in 1996. So they concentrated on putting voting machine technology in other areas, or just such contentious swing vote areas.
From this 10-region perspective, Bush had a strategic decision to make in 2004. He could play a legal game: attempt to retain his office by squeezing more votes out of the five regions he won in 2000 - perhaps by increasing turnout among religious conservatives and other core Republican groups. That would preserve his advantage in the Electoral College, but it might result in another popular-vote loss like he suffered in 2000. One alternative of this legal game is to expand his appeal to moderates and independents enough to win six or more regions.
Or, keeping with his proven success plan of 2000, he could simply rig the vote on a much wider scale: in those swing vote areas that are leaning Republican, by making small tactical and subtle shifts in the electronic vote totals in real time as the votes come in (and go out—into the digital void, that is, sight unseen, uncounted, unrecoverable). Votes under an electronic vote machine have simply become untraceable electrons across phone wires. On Voting Day in November 2004, they are betting that such switches are unlikely to be noticed or they can get away with it once more. Such vote fraud is definitely bound to occur according to academic researchers around the United States ( even from MIT) who say that these machines make it easier to do a rigged vote than a legal one because of all the security holes. These private corporations have made expanding successful vote rigging of 2000 almost painless for Bush in 2004. Though is is painful for all of us who suffer under the repressive yoke of these neo-con transnational corporate criminals that have consolidated the media, removed exit polls (so no one can have any way to compare vote fraud against an 'actual' poll on election day), consolidated government police services, attempted to remove posse commitatus restrictions on armies doing police work, bankrupted the US government with government spending and debt (just like Bush Senior did), and destroyed the whole job base.
As things go presently, without anyone ever being able to find out, vote fraud has become the ultimate 'clean' white collar crime.
Either way, by hook or by crook, Bush will have to start by nailing down his base. Bush won almost all of the electoral votes available in two regions: SOUTHERN COMFORT (his strongest region, which includes his home in Crawford, Texas), and SOUTHERN LOWLANDS (the most marginal of the five regions Bush won). Because it was so marginal, they put voting machines into the latter of these two "Bush" areas literally to lock down the public vote. Plus, they gerrymandered electoral districts just to be sure in SOUTHERN COMFORT to make sure the way the votes were counted geographically was biased toward Bush/Republicans as well.
The SAGEBRUSH region was the GOP's strongest in 1980, when Ronald Reagan was elected. Since then, this libertarian-leaning area has been just a bit less reliable, especially when Ross Perot was on the ballot, but Bush will win another 49 electoral votes if its states fall the same way they did in 2000. So Bush's team avoided prioritizing the rigging the votes there. That is, yet, for 2004. However, the 'federal government' (meaning the neo-con's government) has locked down rural access roads with fences in these regions, because this will be the very areas people will escape to once the Bush police state is fully in place.
In three other states, the SAGEBRUSH region is struggling for supremacy with more culturally liberal Upper Coasts. Oregon, the scene of several bitter referendum questions on abortion and gay rights, is the most on the fence. The outcome there in 2004 may depend on the battle between two suburban Portland counties: Sagebrush's Clackamas County, pointing toward the eastern, more rural part of the state, which Bush carried by a mere 1,000 votes; and Upper Coasts' Washington County, which extends toward the Pacific and which Gore carried by 4,500 votes. So Bush has placed some strategic vote rigged counties in these very counties.
Finally, Maine hasn't shown much enthusiasm for culturally conservative Republicans. In the past, issues such as gun control worked against the Democrats in rural areas. However, this has all changed once BUSH started sponsoring gun control. Maine has a very strong 'state separatist' movement by 2004. They even fielded a governor candidate recently on a separatist platform. All in all, Maine's contentiousness in the Neo-con scheme of things has politically let it avoid having the private electronic voting technology foisted upon it. Unless of course someone suddently finds oil fields offshore in Penobscot Bay...
The FARM BELT has lost some political clout since it was Gerald Ford's strongest region in 1976, but Bush can count on another 22 electoral votes from Indiana, Kansas, and Nebraska, and he may be able to squeeze 24 more votes out of the region. Iowa came within 4,200 votes of giving Bush its seven electoral votes in 2000, somewhat surprising for a state that gave Dukakis a 125,000-vote margin in 1988. So, in consequence, there has been placed some vote machine technology—just a little though—in areas to help Bush out—particularly in population-dense areas that go Democratic.
Who can say what systemic national vote fraud is being choreographed from the Bush White House itself, and the mind of Karl Rove? What other ideas have hatched in the mind of "Bush's Brain," (a college dropout) Karl Rove who has spent the last several years plotting for Bush 2004? Pouring over maps, and election outcomes? Did he realize that there was nothing in the way of making Bush safe without total vote machine fraud? Rove in the past several years has spent his time plotting defamation campaigns, meeting with Hollywood executives after 9-11 on how corporate movies could pump out movies to sell warfare and pro-Bush agendas; he has helped Bush with the 'imagineering' (a Disney word) of Schwarzenegger's campaign in California after another known Bush funder was the one in charge of organizing the recall campaign; Rove has helped DeLay in Texas plot his illegal gerrymanders in the SOUTHER COMFORT region that gained 7 more "Republican" seats. This was done less by appealing to voters, and more simply by 'vote-jacking' (similar to hijacking) their districts they used to vote under, and redrawing them, in such ways that made Republican demograhpics more of a sure thing. Certainly Rove has been in on the 'electioneering' of vote fraud as well, in 2000 as well as 2004. He learned his dirty tricks from the best—under Nixon-era dirty trickster Segretti. He has helped the Senate campaign in 2000 of Ashcroft, which he lost—though he lost it interestingly to dead man. Was this another dirty trick by Rove? How many Democratic challengers are to die in suspicious plane crashes before someone in the popular mind accuses Bush team directly of assassination? R.I.P, Wellstone (2002) and Calahan (2000). There was the suspicous plane crash of Kennedy, Jr., as well, who had told close insiders that he was intersted in either the Democratic nomination for 2000 (which would have put him in compettion with Bush, Jr.) or for the same seat that would pit him against another Bush-crony, Hillary Clinton, who later ran for (and won) her Senate Seat pretending to be a Democrat for New York. And then there were the three simultaneous flight path redirections over Chicago air space into Gore's Air Force Two plane during the campaign—though who's counting? Certainly no one at the major corporate news media, which get their information directly from Pentagon feeds about the wars of the Bush administration. "Curiouser, and curiouser," Rove says fingering his pocketwatch, while turning into the White Rabbit as he disappears down a hole.
Anyway, Bush's best chance, speaking legally for a moment, is to capture a sixth region in 2004. This region is BIG RIVER, which was the most closely divided of all the regions in the last election. But close elections have always been a fact of life in this part of the country, and it won't be easy to shift many here one way or another—without systemic vote fraud. In addition to Iowa (mentioned above), Minnesota is sure to be on Bush's hit list next November. Since it is difficult to win legally, select high population areas of "Democratic leaning" Big River areas have thus been integrated into the Bush voting fraud scheme for 2004.
REGIONAL STRATEGY FOR DEMOCRATS: "WHO US? STRATEGIZE? WE'RE JUST HERE TO HELP BUSH! HONEST!"
No matter whom they nominate for president, the Democrats have a pretty good template for an Electoral College win, since Gore fell only three electoral votes short in 2000. So just to make sure the transnational corporate agenda will be carried through, regardless of whether a "Democrat" or a "Republican" is voted into office, we have the undeniable infrastructure of voting machine frauds to count on—and those only in areas that would benefit Bush. Second, we have the traditional stopgap of corporate American politics: a fellow travelling 'lefty' who is only another elitist and rightist. Voila! The Skull and Bones'er, Kerry! Kerry has been known to cover for the Bush family in the past. For instance, Senator Kerry kept a clear distance from exposing the Bush family's crucial roles in the Iran Contra scandals and kept the Bush family from being exposed in his investigation into BCCI—of which Bush family and Bin Laden interests were very much intertwined. In summary about Kerry, all that can be said is that is simply an extension of the Bush family's shadow and his political career is one of commonality to Bush family interests. It's less that he is a Republican. He is simply an unDemocrat. He is the buffer for those clueless voters that will fall for the typical 'good cop, bad cop' psychological manipulation of the American political system: those who think that if they vote "non Bush" they will get a change of policy. It certainly makes intuitive sense for politics to work that way. However, with those who feel pushed from Bush to only vote for Kerry, this is unfortunately misguided.
Of all 10 regions, EL NORTE presents the greatest potential for the Democrats to pick up electoral votes in 2004. It's also the only region carried by Gore that has above-average population growth, meaning that the Democrats can win several states by stepping up get-out-the-vote efforts. Florida is the most obvious target, and Miami-Dade County is where the Democrats are most in need of improvement. Bush team has concentrated in the past few years putting on voting machines in these Floridian urban areas of EL NORTE.
Theoretically, a Democrat could win the presidency winning only the states that fall within their four strongest regions: Northeast Corridor, Upper Coasts, Great Lakes, and El Norte. It's certainly a beautiful theory. As noted above, the Great Lakes states of Illinois and Wisconsin are dominated by counties in the BIG RIVER region. In fact, Big River is probably responsible for every close Democratic presidential win of the past century. And its large cities have in the past four years had unreliable unverifiable voting machines implanted in them, as a consequence. Yes, it's certainly a beautful theory. However, the physical infrastructure of unverifiable voting stares us in the face as early as February 2004.
The Big River region goes as far south as Arkansas, which historically has been friendlier toward moderate-to-liberal Democrats than any other Confederate state. Like several other Big River states, it hosted a bitterly fought Senate campaign in 2002, and here Democrat Mark Pryor ousted Republican incumbent Tim Hutchison, raising hopes that Arkansas might join Minnesota and Iowa in the Democratic column in 2004. However, with several southenish counties of Arkansas having unreliable voting machine technology put in them, this slight Democratic pressure will be entirely reversed in Bush's favor come (s)election day.
Tennessee has also shown Big River proclivities in the past, though that is the past. Tennessee has elected US senators in the 1950s and 1960s (including Al Gore's father) who pushed for economic populism rather than racial segregation. Note that this whole state has had voting technology implanted within it. Economic populism: why that's the recipe of economic democracy! How dare they! That tradition is over, at least ever-masked from here on, by unverfiable voting machines in this state.
SOUTHERN LOWLANDS is the final region where the Democrats potentially can be expected to pick up electoral votes. As in the Great Lakes region, the distribution of electoral votes could work against the Democrats. The Democratic party does extremely well in a band of counties with large black populations, but these strongholds are divided among 10 states, and true to the age old strategy of 'divide and conquer,' they don't come close to a statewide majority in any of them. For example, Florida offers opportunities to a Democrat concentrating on the Southern Lowlands region. Orange County, home of Disney World, has been trending Democratic as it grows more populous: It gave the first President Bush a 26,000-vote margin even as he lost re-election in 1992, but Gore enjoyed a 5,000-vote advantage in 2000. This type of Democratic lean has been colonized and neutralized by Bushite voting machines here as well.
At the other end of SOUTHERN LOWLANDS, Louisiana is another target made more tempting by a post-9/11 election. The Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu won re-election in December 2002, even over a strong Republican candidate. However, after this last (ever?) election, electronic voting machine technology was put in these urban areas.
CLOSE CALLS
In one respect, the 'red vs. blue' model of Republican v Democratic makes an important point about changes in national politics over the past 30 years. Though we like to think of the 2000 election as being the closest in memory, actually many more states were competitive in the 1976 contest between Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. That's reflected in our 10-region model.
In this very contentious year of 1976, only one region was won by more than a 10 point spread between Democratic and Republican candidates (SOUTHERN LOWLANDS, which Carter carried 57% to 42%). In 2000, there were eight regions that were won by double-digit margins (the exceptions being BIG RIVER and SOUTHERN LOWLANDS). To seal this margin in—and to make sure it stays that way in other swing vote areas—is why Bush has introduced nationwide systemic vote fraud through private voting machine technology. Private unverfiable voting machine technology has been appealed to, to 'save the day' for the increasingly unpopular fascistic putsch of Bush. Bush has destroyed American democracy: the voting, the physical country ("Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests" behind the propaganda being actually a legal framework for more Sooty Skies and wider Clearcut Forests), the budget ('peace dividend eaten up—thrown to the military industrial complex and Halliburtion, ex-CEO Cheney's outfit—in which he still holds stock via his "divestment" (sic) into a mutual fund that is the largest institutional investor of Halliburton); the environment has been destroyed, along with the job base.
It has all been sold away to prepare for global military occupation—once the end of the 'age of oil' and the end of the 'age of water' increasingly lead to systemic unrest against such corporate rule in a little over a decade (or less).
III. CONCLUSION
When the next Bush-inspired, Bush-instigated 9-11 state terror event comes to pass, he will be placed like a deer in the headlights in front of the cameras. He will read Rove's speeches. He will will attempt to justify more domestic crackdown and global military empire, regardless of whatever happens. That is all that Bush has to sell. That is why he should be removed. Bush and his cronies will attempt the actual dreamed-of full scale police state they wanted immediately after 9-11, though have had to postpone, or introduce in small pieces, stuck covertly in riders of unrelated bills. This is how most of the Patriot II has been "passed without being passed" as a package. Both Patriot One and Patriot Two are unpatriotic, and they are unconstitutional.
However, with the fourth state terror plane failing to arrive, and being shot down over Pennsylvania, likely the Capitol was spared. It was headed for DC we know, and it was in the air for over an hour—without any NORAD intercepts, surely another sign of a huge coordinated standdown if there ever was one. Why was it likely to be headed to hit the Capitol? Well, for one, the Capitol was left un-evacuated after the Pentagon hit—while even federal pencil-pusher bean counting bureaucracies were evacuated after the Pentagon hit. Second, Cheney was sitting in the White House bunker, directing it all.
Because their fourth plane failed to pull through, we have been pushed into a strange twilight before the complete complete darkness they seek. That darkeness is the total destruction of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and its replacement with a series of endless terror alerts, administrative legal decisions, manipulated military news coverage, concentration camps, the outlawing of political parties, and a government that can simply throw you in jail without a trial or remove your citizenship whenever it wants to and kick you out of the country.
We all--left, right, libertarians, and greens—emphatically hate Bush for what he has done and what is planning to do. This is why so many illegal activities have been attempted in the past four years under Bush: they know they are surrounded by Bush haters on the right and on the left. The only 'mandate' they have ever had was based on a lie: that 9-11 was external terrorism. We have been asked to give everything that is the United States for a lie, a lie that is even more embarassing because it is such a house of cards and its justifications keep changing—because the previous justifications always have failed to materialize. The Bush administration is the only one who is on a record talking conspiracy theory: Bush has given the world only conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory, none of which have been true: transparently fake stories about Islamic terrorists, their forged documents from Niger, their direct lies on the United Nations floor, their claims of weapons of mass destruction that fail to exist, etc. Bush is on record as the largest conspiracy theorist around. And without ever offering any proof. The world has been misled by Bush's unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.
Under Bush, in the short space of four years, everything about the United States formally has been changed: voting machines regularly rig votes in particular Democratic areas or swing states, rural roads are sealed off by the federal government, we have a large centralized database coming into being to monitor everything from books you read to food you buy. We have thousands of people being illegally held, "indefinitely" in Guantanamo and other states-side prisons—even without charges. American citizens have been stripped of their citizenship and thrown 'back' (sic) to previous family-of-origin countries. He has created a category of second-class citizen both for Black Americans (who are unable to vote or get redress of grievances about it in Florida), and he is expanding that idea to workers in his misnamed "illegal entry amnesty" program, which is only a recipie for bonded slave labor without any political guarantees that you can stay. There are 5 million people either on the 'no fly' or 'political dissident' list. Under the Patriot Acts, foreign countries are legally allowed to conduct spy operations on American soil. People are kept from flying simply because of political beliefs. There are concentration camps being organized. UN troops, from 1999, have been trained to perform US urban policing (Operation: Urban Warrior). Posse commitatus, the protection that the army will be separate from domestic policing is being broken with the very existence of Homeland Security and the NORTHCOM region. Posse commitatus is what has separated the United States from a banana republic of Central or South America—though this is almost gone as well. We have seen the media consolidated and passed into the hands of internationalists like Neo-con supporter Murdoch—despite public outcries to stop media consolidation. The corporate media has been a huge tool of manipulation instead of support for democracy. It has been used against us all, used to enflame and engineer fear and support for the Nuremberg Trial scale crimes the Bush team has perpetrated: pre-emptive invasions on Afghanistan and Iraq—without any evidence of a threat.
Bush himself is the most widely reviled person in the history of the world: 10 million or more people around the world protested against him and his decision to attack Iraq in early 2003.
And to top it all off, we have this grinning skull of a death cult, Skull and Bones, which seems central to it all though in the background, as two of its mere 500 or so living members (what are the odds?!) Bush and Kerry pretend to run against each other. This is the same pretense as the fakery of 'Bush v. Gore' in 2000 (when they literally agreed with each other point for point in the (now private) televised debates), which turned off so many voters that barely over half of the country voted for either of these identitial candidates of the transnational corporate interests.
The corporate Democrats, as much as the corporate Republicans, support Bush. They laugh at us as they run 'against' each other in a sick sequel of 2000—when they have been in bed with each other for 20 years politically, or more. A Skull and Bone'er has become the fake Democrat. Kerry is the '(death's) head candidate" that is saturated in media coverage, even though no one wants to vote for him. All this when the working class Kucinich, who is the only person capable of doing so to vote against the unConstitutional Patriot Act and who campaigns on having it repealed. Kucinich is far more likely as a Democrat to represent commonalities American share against transnational, internationalist, corporate power. However, because of lack of media airplay (despite rising percentages—he got 30% in Hawaii without the media even saying anything), can someone—anyone?—except him muster an open Democratic party primary on the Party floor? The best the Democrats—even, the best Americans in general regardless of political stripe—can hope for is a open Democratic and open Republican primary where NONE of the Skull and Bones cronies have enough party electoral votes in the totaled state primaries to get an automatic nominations.
This imples an even more remote miracle: that common Republicans finally realize that Bush is acting like a Bolshevik: that he is centralizing a police state, expanded the federal government, and set up larger governmental deficits than any Democrat ever dreamed of. Plus, like the Soviet Union's Communist Party in practice, he has only feathered his close crony friends with billions upon billions of public tax monies—while the rest of the population either starves or is closely watched.
It seems that if more Republicans knew about the more actual Republican candidate contenders than Bush—like, the "9-11 Truth Candidate" Jim Buchanan; or the religious rightist Peroutka who wants to see the Patriot Acts repealed—they might even cause a mass defection against Bush from the very regions he has forgotten to rig the voting machines in for 2004.
Maybe the artificially simple good vs. evil nature of the fake war against terrorism has made it too easy to fit domestic politics into a dichotomy. But the red vs. blue model of 'Democrat versus Republican' papers over too many real differences in the national electorate. Plus, 'red vs. blue' motifs paper over how the Democrats and the Republicans are absolutely identical in terms of policy, for four years running.
Contenting third and fourth parties are couping a windfall of voters. Such third and fourth parties understand this "Bush defection" by its Rightist party base, and the animosity from the Democratic camp of simply being given another "Skull and Bones" candidate as a Bush clone, will certainly gain advantages for all alternativesly in 2004 - but it can't expect to maintain this advantage for long. Why? Well, because no one can be sure if the vote means anything anymore in the United States. This is why total removal of all electronic vote machine infrastructures are required to maintain democracy in the United States.
Because of this expanding ACTUAL party competition, in the widening of third and fourth party appeals in the American body politic, pressure from the grass roots of both the left and right have been looking at their 'traditional' parties with a critical eye. They have been vacating these empty internationalist beasts that have taken over both the Democratic and the Republican parties. This is exposed the transnational destruction of the planet and democracy for what it is—without any voter base at all.
Voters at the polls were barely over 50% in the 2000 election for President. In other words, about half of the voters stayed home, disgusted with their lack of choices. That means at most either Bush or Gore would have only a "25% MANDATE" for their policies. That is how thin their support is. 75% of the population opposes both of them, when taken as a whole. That is about the same number, it is estimated, of USA-loyal military officers and rank-and-file soldiers who are against Bush's plans for the destruction of the Constitution. I salute all of them as they watch and wait for an opening to remove Bush's administrative coup d'etat of 2000.
With Americans wanting more actual party competition, we want parties that address health care concerns. We want parties that address the environment and the economy—from a working man's or woman's point of view. We want someone to address this near immediate end of the age of oil by promoting cleaner technologies that leave the United States less (instead of more) dependent upon that oil. We want someone to address the cover-up around the events of September 11, 2001, since even the head of the 9-11 Commission, Kean, has said publicly that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon could have been prevented.
All of this is why Bush wants to trash the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and usher in a police state. Because he KNOWS that with an honest election, he would lose. So, honest elections have stopped being valid—or even validatable! Please pass this information along—to those who you think would least likely want to hear it.
|
contribute to this article
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion
|
there is some truth in this, as electronic voter fraud, as explained by black box voting and bev harris, can only be pulled off in very very tight, contentious races.
assuming that electronic vote fraud goes down in the way described by bev harris, in which the vote tabulation software is hacked and the vote tallies of candidate A are switched to the vote tallies of candidate B (without changing the TOTAL number of votes cast for BOTH candidates), a day before an election for example, if candidate A has a 20% lead or margin over candidate B, it would look awfully strange if candidate B won the election by 20%.
however, a day before the election, if candidate A has only a 5% or less margin over candidate B, it would not look quite as strange if candidate B won by 5%
this is the pattern to look for in november: the losing candidates in a race winning by the EXACT SAME MARGIN they were behind. and this can only be pulled off without suspicion in very tight contentious races...