Make your own free website on Tripod.com

10-22-2004

Sue wins again and just who stole the election?


Who stole the election? Who's planning an attempt to steal this election if need be? Well it sure isn't George Bush. Just who has six teams of lawyers, legal pads in hand, private jets on the tarmac, all within an hour of every battleground state? Kerry has already stated he is ready to challenge every close vote, and indeed the election results regardless of how much Bush wins by (if he does in fact win). For a candidate and a party so confident, so together, it seems odd to be worrying about this.

We have election fraud already appearing all over the country by the left…votes for money, votes for cocaine, votes for the dead, votes for fictional characters, votes for people that cannot identify who they are or their real names or give an address (true folks-these are the Provisional Ballots that many are already screaming about and that the Democrats are quickly rounding up to vote). We have balloting across the country being challenged by the liberals before folks even get a chance to vote. The term "equal protection" is already being bandied about, which doesn't even apply to the voting METHOD, but the liberals are already trying to make it stick. I am a Republican. My best friend and business partner is a Democrat. We both go to our polling place and have the opportunity to vote. Let's say we both vote using a lever system. Do we both not have equal opportunity to vote for our candidate? Well, suppose our precinct switches to punch cards. Don't we still have equal opportunity to vote for our candidate? How about if we use the fancy touch screens? Don't we still have equal opportunity? The obvious and common sense answer is yes. But what the liberals are trying to say is that a person voting in Philadelphia using touch screens versus a person voting in Berwick with the old lever systems do not have equal protection, which is not only ridiculous, but downright scary.

Every single state in the United States, all 50 of them, use different voting methods within their state. Using the definition of equal protection that the left is trying to establish means that no state has equal protection within it's borders and certainly not across borders. This is chilling. What even makes this more preposterous is that we have been using different voting methods for decades and decades, and it has never been a problem until Algore coined the term "hanging chad" followed by "dimpled chad" followed by "pregnant chad" etc, etc, etc. Why the hysteria already? Simple, the left just cannot get over the fact that they lost the 2000 election and now it is time for payback, and they do not care who gets in their way. "There's a whole lotta suin' to be done 'round here."

So let's take a walk back in time to the 2000 election. Let's look at who really won, who suppressed votes, who broke laws, who intentionally misinterpreted laws, and what part the mainstream media played.

2:16am and all's not well...

Go back to 2:16:46am, very early, the day after the election-after the polls were closed nationwide. Fox News analyzed the Voters News Service (VNS) report at 1:30am that stated that Bush was winning by 60,000 votes with 95% of the Florida precincts counted. Gore would have to win 65% of the remaining 5% of the precincts, most of which were heavily Republican, to even have a chance, and as the numbers rolled in Gore's percentage of each precinct's vote count was diminishing. By 2:00am his numbers had continued to fall. Now under normal conditions the state would have been called much earlier, but there was already seeds of doubt being planted and calls for recounts under way. At 2:16:46, the state was called for Bush by Fox, followed 55 seconds later by the other networks.

Keep in mind that NBC news had incorrectly called Florida for Gore at 7:49pm, followed by CNN and ABC, while the polls in the panhandle were still open for another hour and eleven minutes. Not only did they call the state, they also stated the polls across Florida were closed. CBS News announced 18 times alone that the polls were closed during the last hour the polls were open in the panhandle. Dan Rather stated, "If we say somebody's carried a state, you can take that to the bank." And by the way, earlier in the evening, Fox also called the state incorrectly for Gore as well. There was no outrage then at Fox.

There have been three separate studies showing that because the big three networks all announced the polls were closed, people went home or never left. Economist John Lott, a liberal, announced Bush actually lost 10,000-37,000 votes and commented that there was a huge drop off in votes coming out of the panhandle's 10 western counties which are heavily Republican. John McLauchlin, reported Bush lost 10,000 votes. And Democratic strategist Bob Beckle's own study showed that Bush lost 8,000 votes. Beckle was the guy that then went around and tried to get the electors to switch their votes to Gore. Top all this off the huge number of military votes that were dismissed, thrown out by a liberal judge. By prematurely calling the vote for Gore, Bush lost votes and this has never been denied by the left. But the outrage ended up being placed on Fox News, which correctly called the state. Why? Because the guy that made the call was Bush's cousin, John Ellis.

The left had their next Ken Starr. John Ellis was instantly attacked. Reports came out about how he "psychologically" influenced the election after the polls were closed. Protestors took to the streets and airwaves. Gore campaign organizer, Cheryl Guttman, blistered Ellis and Fox, while admitting she never even watched Fox and that she never even knew that Ellis was employed by NBC for ten years and also by the Boston Globe. She knew nothing about the man other than he worked for Fox and was cousin to Bush, and so that instantly makes him the devil-an enemy to be crushed. She stated, "he called the election for Bush and, psychologically, people felt that means Bush won." Okay, your point is?

Bush won the original vote count in Florida. He won three recounts, including two that were exclusively in Democratic precincts, which WAS in violation of equal protection, but at that point the law didn't matter. So what if they only recount Democratic votes. How dare we want a recount of all the votes! Bush won the recount of the absentee ballots, and he won every single media recount that was performed for one year after the election, again in violation of the law. He even won the New York Times recount which used their own formula that threw out all military ballots that were in on time, but hey, what's a little vote suppression among friends and bed partners on the left. Oh yeah, about 15% of those votes were from African-Americans, but keep that quiet. Okay?

To this day, the big three news stations and CNN denied that the Fox projection at 2:16am had anything to do with their calling the state for Bush, but rather they relied upon the VNS, and their own data. So much for the "psychology" of it all. There was one holdout however. The Associated Press called Florida for Gore even though it's own internal numbers had Bush ahead, and later in the evening they refused to call Florida for Bush even though again their own numbers and the VNS numbers showed Bush the winner. I think they still think Gore won.

Timing...

Let's now look at other ways the media tried to influence the vote. It was very sneaky, but was figured out eventually by the conservative media. What the big three and CNN did was to call states for Gore as soon as they had internal data that showed him winning, regardless of what the VNS said. Probably the most obvious example would be Maine. Gore was up in Maine by about 6 points with about 80% of the precincts in and Bush's vote total increasing. It looked like a race to the wire, certainly within 5 points. But the race was called for Gore by the big three and CNN within 10 minutes of the polls closing and before the VNS had conclusive results. It was fortunate that Gore did win by 5 points, otherwise Maine could have been another Florida.

The reason why the announcement came as quickly as it did was to influence voters in the Central to Pacific Time Zones. "Hey, Gore is winning, all you Republican's in fly over country stay home!" Bush wins Colorado going away by 9 points and at no time was he behind, yet the mainstreamers found it fitting to wait 2 hours and 41 minutes to make the call, ensuring that voters to the West would be finished voting and past the point of influence. Even east coast states like Georgia, where Bush won by 12, were called in 60 minutes. And this process was repeated in Arizona, Michigan, Tennessee, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Washington, Arkansas, and even Minnesota, a two point Gore victory which was called at a snails pace by the mainstream media-1 hour and 25 minutes after the polls were closed-I'm sure heads rolled because of that one-I mean what were they waiting for?

It is a sad state when the mainstream media took more time to announce states for Bush that he won by 15, 12, or 9 points, then they did to incorrectly call a state for Gore.

How to make seven into seventeen…

Florida Law: "If the county returns are not received by the Department of State by 5pm of the seventh day following an election, all missing counties shall be ignored and the results shown by the returns on file shall be certified." Note the wording does not say "may" or "could be." Clearly, "shall."

Florida Supreme Court interpretation of this law: "Seven days in the statute means seventeen days."

And thus, Gore was given an illegal fourth ballot recount, which stunningly, he lost again. The New York Times called the above statement of law a "Republican contention." So let's see, to the left, clearly stated law is only a contention and a right-winged one at that, but interpreting seven days as seventeen was absolutely correct. And folks this is what the US Supreme Court ruled upon, not that Gore got a fair shake or not, not that Gore didn't get enough recounts, not that the recounts were fraudulent, they ruled that seven means seven. And even if they did not make this ruling, Gore still LOST the fourth recount!

Now of course the left needed a scapegoat. Of course it had to be Katherine Harris, Florida Secretary of State. And amazingly enough, as Katherine was being called every name in the book, her life picked apart, her hair style criticized, her clothing criticized, her family criticized, her friends interviewed in an attempt to find dirt, the NOW was no where to be found. Oh wait, the NOW only supports women if they vote on the left side of the aisle. Got it.

For those of you out there that think that this election will be won or lost by the votes. Sadly, you are wrong. If Kerry wins by one point, the headlines will read "Kerry wins in a landslide!" If Bush wins by 5 points, we will not have a President until May, and Kerry's people are already in place and he has already stated what his action will be. It will be to come right out and say he won the election, early, often, and loudly, and his dupes in the mainstream media will be right there for him. He intends to go right after it, unlike Gore, who only asked for recounts. I have no doubt the media already have stories prepared. In fact, there have already been stories stating that Bush should just back down like the great Richard Nixon did when he backed down against an Illinois recount of a vote that history has now proven to be fraudulent. Suddenly the left is extolling the virtue of Richard Nixon, a man they hate? Makes sense to me.

God help all of us-both Democrat and Republican. If Kerry wins this race, America will be changed forever, sadly for the worse.

Lunch...

I thought that last year was the year for the Red Sox. Sue Henry, while she hoped it would be, thought that it would be another year. She was right and thus I had to buy lunch and listen to her bust my butt on the radio. This year, I figured there was no way the Red Sox would make it to the World Series, but Ms. Henry did. And imagine the fun I was having telling her how much I was going to enjoy that free lunch after game 1, game 2, and game 3. Denis Leary, a huge Red Sox fan, had a great line, "I'm an optimistic pessimist…I root for the Red Sox to lose…it's what I expect." So imagine how I now feel knowing once again I will be buying.

That was the most amazing thing I have seen in sports in some time and an historic moment to boot. If I had to write a script for the Red Sox to win, I could not have done better. Lance winning his sixth tour, the miracle on ice, Rose breaks Cobb's record, Flutie's Boston College magic, this one is right up there. It broke it's own mold.

Now a word from our sponsor…

AMERICANS WITH NO ABILITIES ACT PASSES CONGRESS

May 23, 2005

WASHINGTON, DC (AP) - Congress approved sweeping legislation, which provides new benefits for many Americans. Advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition are hailing the Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA), signed into law by President John Kerry shortly after its passage, as a major victory.

"Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society," said Kerry, a longtime AWNAA supporter.

"This is why many of them voted for me. We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they do a better job, or have some idea of what they are doing", said Kerry.

President Kerry has also set an example, personally selecting hundreds of Non-abled people for top government positions, including many cabinet-level jobs.

Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million "middle man" positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance. Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given, to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations, which maintain a significant level of Persons of Inability in top positions, and gives a tax credit to small and medium businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires.

Finally, the AWNAA contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the Non-abled, banning discriminatory interview questions such as "Do you have any goals for the future?" or "Do you have any skills or experience which relate to this job?" and "Are you awake?" "As a Non-abled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them," said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, MI due to her lack of notable job skills. "This new law should really help people like me." With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens can finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Said Kerry, "It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her adequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation."

Audioslave on crank.

Keep the faith.
Private Sector Dude.