You are hereBlogs / davidswanson's blog / John Kerry Must Speak Out on 2004 Election Theft Now

John Kerry Must Speak Out on 2004 Election Theft Now


By davidswanson - Posted on 28 October 2012

The presidential election of 2004 left much to be desired.  Millions of votes were suppressed, and the evidence is overwhelming that votes were flipped by interested parties.  Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman summarize:

"The widespread use of electronic voting machines from ES&S, and of Diebold software maintained by Triad, allowed [Ohio Secretary of State Ken] Blackwell to electronically flip a 4% Kerry lead to a 2% Bush victory in the dead of election night. ES&S, Diebold and Triad were all owned or operated by Republican partisans. The shift of more than 300,000 votes after 12:20 a.m. election night was a virtual statistical impossibility. It was engineered by Michael Connell, an IT specialist long affiliated with the Bush Family. Blackwell gave Connell's Ohio-based GovTech the contract to count Ohio's votes, which was done on servers housed in the Old Pioneer Bank Building in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Thus the Ohio vote tally was done on servers that also carried the e-mail for Karl Rove and the national Republican Party. Connell died in a mysterious plane crash in December, 2008, after being subpoenaed in the King-Lincoln-Bronzeville federal lawsuit focused on how the 2004 election was decided (disclosure: we were attorney and plaintiff in that suit).  Diebold's founder, Walden O'Dell, had vowed to deliver Ohio's electoral votes---and thus the presidency---to his friend George W. Bush. That it was done in part on electronic voting machines and software O'Dell happened to own (Diebold has since changed hands twice) remains a cautionary red flag for those who believe merely winning the popular vote will give Barack Obama a second term."

There are no doubt honest people who have looked at the evidence and disagree that the election was stolen in 2004.  There might even be -- although I can't imagine how -- people who have looked at Ohio 2004 and concluded that what went down was a respectable electoral process up to all international standards and beyond all possibility of doubt.  I'm even willing to concede that someone somewhere honestly thinks allowing private companies to count our votes on computers in a manner that can never be verified is a reasonable approach to democratic self-governance, given the complete absence from all recent history of any private company ever engaging in any questionable practice that might radically increase its profits.

But, according to a credible report from 2005, one key person who eventually came to understand that Ohio was stolen was the candidate from whom it was stolen: John Kerry.  Kerry reportedly said that he did not want to speak out about this because he would be accused of being a sore loser.  His running mate John Edwards, who -- by various accounts -- opposed conceding the election in 2004, has since been disgraced as an adulterer.  Let's set aside for the moment the question of whether adultery is worse than election theft.  What I want to know is this: would allowing the 2012 election to be stolen be a price worth paying to avoid the unpleasantness of John Kerry being called a sore loser on tee-vee?

Why would the 2012 election be stolen?  Well, there is the matter of the 2012 primaries.  And then there are the basic facts as laid out by the least likely media outlet in the world to twist them in favor of my argument: Fox News.  Again, let Fitrakis-Wasserman, or Wassrakis for short, summarize:

"Despite an almost total blackout from the corporate media, the Romney family has a personal ownership (through the investment firms Solamere and H.I.G. Capital) in Hart Intercivic, which owns, maintains, programs and will tabulate alleged votes on machines in the critical swing states of Ohio, Florida, Virginia and Colorado. Despite various official disclaimers, the election could be decided on Hart machines producing 'vote counts' with little connection to how 18 million people actually voted.  It is inconceivable that the Romney chain of ownership in Hart Intercivic will not influence how that goes. …  [T]here is no legally binding way by which a professionally rigged electronic vote count can be overturned or even definitively discovered except through the use of unabridged but legally inconsequential exit polling.  Scytl, a Barcelona-based e-voting company, has been contracted to count votes in 26 states through the easily rigged Federal Overseas Voting Program. FVAP is ostensibly geared to let military and other overseas Americans vote absentee by electronic means. But Scytl is positioned to intercept and redistribute such overseas electronic votes as needed through its spyware sister company, CarrierIQ. In a close race, these 'votes' can be distributed at will to make the difference in critical swing states.  Other key voting machine companies, such as ES&S, Dominion, Command Central and more, are controlled by major corporations, some of whose owners are outspoken in their support for the Republican Party. … Republicans hold the governorships in the nine critical swing states of Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico and Arizona. They also hold the secretaries of state offices in all of those states but Wisconsin. Electronically flipping the vote count in any or all of them, with Hart Intercivic, Scytl, Dominion or other technologies, can be done quickly, simply and invisibly, with no public recourse."

Perhaps you're thinking that just because a crime can be undetectably committed is no reason to create the slanderous idea that it would be.  However, we are dealing here with people already, beyond any question, disenfranchising millions by throwing away registration forms, stripping registration rolls, instructing voters to vote on the wrong day, warning voters they may be arrested for voting, and flooding the media with dishonest advertisements for candidates.

If anything disgusts me more than the false charade of democracy distracting most of my fellow citizens from the struggle to develop actual democracy, it is death bed confessions.  I don't want to ever hear one from John Kerry.  I hope that he may live many more years.  But when he dies, I don't want to hear any Robert McNamara-like truth telling spilling out of his horselike face.  I want to hear it now, this week, prior to the 2012 election.  I want it out there preemptively.  I want people prepared to look for election fraud.  And I want candidates prepared to point to it if it appears, big as life, staring us all in the face as it did eight years ago.

Or perhaps you're counting on Barack Obama, whose supreme value is "bipartisanship," to speak up for himself unprompted, in the complete absence of a swift kick to his pusillanimous posterior.

Speak now, Senator Kerry.  Show courage unlike the perverse daredevilism required to participate in war.  Show courage when we need it.  We need it now.  Speak.


Tags

I hadn't thought in terms of the electronic rigging or e-rigging of the election with abusive use of e-voting machines, though did know about some of that after having read several articles, including pieces from FreePress.org, I think especially about what happened in Ohio.  But, even without think of the e-rigging, I've always suspected that the 2004 election results weren't "on the up-and-up".  Bush lost in 2000 and while this came to be proven and reported by Fall 2001, a time during which we know that most Americans were caught up in hysterical reaction(s) due to the 9/11 attacks, well, Robert Parry reported about the vote recount results in an article at his website, ConsortiumNews.com. He didn't produce the initial report and was just writing about what it said, but this also means that the recount results were reported by other sources, so I guess anyone could learn of the recount results.  And the point is that this was known and nothing was ever done to rectify this serious error.

It wasn't really an error, not in what I'd consider a normal sense for usage of the word "error", anyway. After all, some "elites" had decided that Bush was going to be President and this evidently was to happen with whatever means would work. We can call it an error, just that it's a deliberately/wittingly committed one.

It also didn't seem plausible that Bush could win against Gore.  I was against both and pretty much despise both, though Bush was so dumb during his first years as President that he at least caused me to laugh a little. It's not a happy sort of laughter. Instead, it's because the situation is ridiculous and seems to be almost ridiculously hopeless. It's so damn stupid that it occasionally makes me laugh; and then I return to my serious self again.

We already had reasons to be very wary about the reported results for the 2004 Presidential election and I didn't see how Bush would be able to get a majority vote when it had become clear that he et al commanded a war based on LIES.

I was against Gore and Kerry, as well as Bush, but Bush lost and "that's that". Even if I'm against the other two, it doesn't mean that I have any legitimate reason to support someone who did lose.  I don't know how that could be done without lying and I wouldn't want to lie about anything important when it's societally relevant.  To lie about whether or not a person consumes marijuana is to lie about something important or for an important reason, which is to be on the side of Justice and, thereforre, against injustice; and this kind of lie has no relevance to anyone else. But when speaking of politics, then it's always relevant to many people, so there must be no lies.  I'd argue against voting for Gore, Kerry, Obama, Clinton, and many other false, phony lefties or "liberals", but Bush lost and "that's that".

Oh well, there isn't anything surprising in or about any of this, and we can learn from US history as well as about very rich, powerfully influential people and their relations with Washington.  I have a number of videos saved to YouTube playlists that provide very suitable information as well as views.

"Politics - who really rules, & what to do &/or know about it", https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_2I2IPdYHHWQs8PgJBNtwc5nkE_tTXtN (all of the presently 5 videos)

"Politics - USA - Elections", https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6D3ADA66F02497BB (eg, "U.S. elections: a TV reality show" and "Best Election Money Can Buy")

Video: "Technocracy and Education - James Tracy on GRTV" with James Corbett as host (15min), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdwcuD82BXM

There surely are many other videos that would be suitable for reflection, but the ones in the above playlists, as well as the above video with James Tracy, are good for helping us understand the "nature of the beast", i.e., Washington and who is really "running the (big) show" or program. The "Meet Alexander Hamilton" video is an interesting one that I viewed only yesterday and it's linked in the "Politics - who really rules & ..." playlist. It isn't exhaustive about Hamilton, as James Corbett says, but it certainly provides important insight or knowledge about some of the historical "things" that led to the USA becoming as we know it to be today; politically corrupt/perverted, tyrannical, ....

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.