 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:14 pm Post subject: Bush Stole Mexican Election-UK Left Running Wild |
 |
|
This wacko reporter needs some help in reporting the truth. I suggest we all leave comments on the Guardian's website to give these Left Wing Lunnies a much needed education.
Leave your comments
| Quote: | Mexico and Florida have more in common than heat
There is evidence that left-leaning voters have been scrubbed from key electoral lists in Latin America
Greg Palast
Saturday July 8, 2006
The Guardian
There's something rotten in Mexico. And it smells like Florida. The ruling party, the Washington-friendly National Action Party (Pan), proclaimed yesterday their victory in the presidential race, albeit tortilla thin, was Mexico's first "clean" election. But that requires we close our eyes to some very dodgy doings in the vote count that are far too reminiscent of the games played in Florida in 2000 by the Bush family. And indeed, evidence suggests that Team Bush had a hand in what may be another presidential election heist.
Just before the 2000 balloting in Florida, I reported in the Guardian that its governor, Jeb Bush, had ordered the removal of tens of thousands of black citizens from the state's voter rolls. He called them "felons", but our investigation discovered their only crime was Voting While Black. And that little scrub of the voter rolls gave the White House to his brother George.
Jeb's winning scrub list was the creation of a private firm, ChoicePoint of Alpharetta, Georgia. Now, it seems, ChoicePoint is back in the voter list business - in Mexico - at the direction of the Bush government. Months ago, I got my hands on a copy of a memo from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, marked "secret", regarding a contract for "intelligence collection of foreign counter-terrorism investigations".
Given that the memo was dated September 17 2001, a week after the attack on the World Trade Centre, hunting for terrorists seemed like a heck of a good idea. But oddly, while all 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf, the contract was for obtaining the voter files of Venezuela, Brazil ... and Mexico.
What those Latin American countries have in common, besides a lack of terrorists, is either a left-leaning president or a left candidate for president ahead in the opinion polls, leaders of the floodtide of Bush-hostile Latin leaders. It seems that the Bush government feared the leftist surge was up against the US's southern border.
As we found in Florida in 2000, my investigations team on the ground in Mexico City this week found voters in poor neighbourhoods, the left's turf, complaining that their names were "disappeared" from the voter rolls. ChoicePoint can't know what use the Bush crew makes of its lists. But erased registrations require us to ask, before this vote is certified, was there a purge as there was in Florida?
Notably, ruling party operatives carried registration lists normally in the hands of elections officials only. (In Venezuela in 2004, during the special election to recall President Hugo Chavez, I saw his opponents consulting laptops with voter lists. Were these the purloined FBI files? The Chavez government suspects so but, victorious, won't press the case.)
There's more that the Mexico vote has in common with Florida besides the heat. The ruling party's hand-picked electoral commission counted a mere 402,000 votes more for their candidate, Felipe Calderón, over challenger Andrés Manuel López Obrador. That's noteworthy in light of the surprise showing of candidate Señor Blank-o (the 827,000 ballots supposedly left "blank").
We've seen Mr Blank-o do well before - in Florida in 2000 when Florida's secretary of state (who was also co-chair of the Bush campaign) announced that 179,000 ballots showed no vote for the president. The machines couldn't read these ballots with "hanging chads" and other technical problems. Humans can read these ballots with ease, but the hand-count was blocked by Bush's conflicted official.
And so it is in Mexico. The Calderón "victory" is based on a gross addition of tabulation sheets. His party, the Pan, and its election officials are refusing López Obrador's call for a hand recount of each ballot which would be sure to fill in those blanks.
Blank ballots are rarely random. In Florida in 2000, 88% of the supposedly blank ballots came from African-American voting districts - that is, they were cast by Democratic voters. In Mexico, the supposed empty or unreadable ballots come from the poorer districts where the challenger's Party of the Democratic Revolution (PDR) is strongest.
There's an echo of the US non-count in the south-of-the-border tally. It's called "negative drop-off". In a surprising number of districts in Mexico, the federal electoral commission logged lots of negative drop-off: more votes for lower offices than for president. Did López Obrador supporters, en masse, forget to punch in their choice?
There are signs of Washington's meddling in its neighbour's election. The International Republican Institute, an arm of Bush's party apparatus funded by the US government, admits to providing tactical training for Pan. Did Pan also make use of the purloined citizen files? (US contractor ChoicePoint, its Mexican agents facing arrest for taking the data, denied wrongdoing and vowed to destroy its copies of the lists. But what of Mr Bush's copy?)
Mexico's Bush-backed ruling party claims it has conducted Mexico's first truly honest election, though it refuses to re-count the ballots or explain the purge of voters. Has the Pan and its ally in Washington served democracy in this election, or merely Florida con salsa?
Greg Palast is the author of Armed Madhouse: Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf? China Floats Bush Sinks, the Scheme to Steal '08 and other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War
gregpalast.com |
SBD |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Anker-Klanker
Admiral
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1033
Location: Richardson, TX
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just look at the last line:
| Quote: | Greg Palast is the author of Armed Madhouse: Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf? China Floats Bush Sinks, the Scheme to Steal '08 and other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War
gregpalast.com |
The author is clearly an over-the-top left wing Socialist. And his friends will eat up everything he's written as the absolute truth; most sane people don't read the Guardian and will merely regard him as the kook he is. These people are so transparent that they don't bother me very much. It's the slightly less deranged useless idiots in our own country that I worry about, and they're starting to make some of the same noises. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Unfortunately he's American.
SBD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's my comment
| Quote: |
The Left still can't get over the fact the George Bush won the 2000 election. They cling on to their fantasy that Bush stole the election, when it was the Left that tried to still the election by using their favorite branch of government to change the law.
The United States Of America
The Founding Fathers, the framers of the Constitution, wanted to form a government that did not allow one person to have too much authority or control. While under the rule of the British king they learned that this could be a bad system. Yet government under the Articles of Confederation taught them that there was a need for a strong centralized government.
With this in mind the framers wrote the Constitution to provide for a separation of powers, or three separate branches of government. Each has its own responsibilities and at the same time they work together to make the country run smoothly and to assure that the rights of citizens are not ignored or disallowed. This is done through checks and balances. A branch may use its powers to check the powers of the other two in order to maintain a balance of power among the three branches of government.
The legislative branch of government is made up of the Congress and government agencies, such as the Government Printing Office and Library of Congress, that provide assistance to and support services for the Congress. Article I of the Constitution established this branch and gave Congress the power to make laws. Congress has two parts, the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The executive branch of Government makes sure that the laws of the United States are obeyed. The President of the United States is the head of the executive branch of government. This branch is very large so the President gets help from the Vice President, department heads (Cabinet members), and heads of independent agencies.
The judicial branch of government is made up of the court system. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. Article III of the Constitution established this Court and all other Federal courts were created by Congress. Courts decide arguments about the meaning of laws, how they are applied, and whether they break the rules of the Constitution.
The Left wants to give the power of the Legislative Branch to the Judicial Branch by allowing the Courts to create the Law to fit their needs.
On to this pathetic article. The Secretary of State is an elected office in all States including Florida. Katherine Harris was not chosen by the Governor Jeb Bush or George Bush.
As Secretary of State for the State of Florida, Katherine Harris presided over the contested 2000 US presidential election in Florida. There were allegations of conflicts of interest and partisan, unethical behavior in Katherine Harris's actions during the 2000 campaign. Among Democrats, a factor which rankled was the fact that Harris had been named as Bush's Florida campaign co-chair the year before. Bob Butterworth, the Florida state Attorney General, served as co-chair of Gore's campaign. A number of other elected officials of both parties actively campaigned for their respective national candidates.
There were 6,000,000 ballots cast in Florida. The so called "undervotes" amounted to 110,000 ballots which equates to 1.8% of the total ballots.
Here's how one County in Florida conducted their recount of the "undervotes".
From the United States Supreme Court
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supremecourt/00-949_dec12.fdf
Palm Beach County, for example, began the process with a 1990 guideline which precluded counting completely attached chads, switched to a rule that considered a vote to be legal if any light could be seen through a chad, changed back to the 1990 rule, and then abandoned any pretense of a per se rule, only to have a court order that the county consider dimpled chads legal. This is not a process with sufficient guarantees of equal treatment.
Moreover, the court's interpretation of "legal vote," and hence its decision to order a contest-period recount, plainly departed from the legislative scheme. Florida statutory law cannot reasonably be thought to require the counting of improperly marked ballots. Each Florida precinct before election day provides instructions on how properly to cast a vote, §101.46; each polling place on election day contains a working model of the voting machine it uses, §101.5611; and each voting booth contains a sample ballot, §101.46. In precincts using punch-card ballots, voters are instructed to punch out the ballot cleanly:
AFTER VOTING, CHECK YOUR BALLOT CARD TO BE SURE YOUR VOTING SELECTIONS ARE CLEARLY AND CLEANLY PUNCHED AND THERE
ARE NO CHIPS LEFT HANGING ON THE BACK OF THE CARD.
But as we indicated in our remand of the earlier case, in a Presidential election the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must prevail. And there is no basis for reading the Florida statutes as requiring the counting of improperly marked ballots, as an examination of the Florida Supreme Court's textual analysis shows. We will not parse that analysis here, except to note that the principal provision of the election code on which it relied, §101.5614(5), was, as the Chief Justice pointed out in his dissent from Harris II, entirely irrelevant. See Gore v. Harris, No. SC00-2431, slip op., at 50 (Dec. 8, 2000).
The State's Attorney General (who was supporting the Gore challenge) confirmed in oral argument here that never before the present election had a manual recount been
conducted on the basis of the contention that "undervotes" should have been examined to determine voter intent. Tr. of Oral Arg. in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., 39-40 (Dec. 1, 2000); cf. Broward County Canvassing Board v. Hogan, 607 So. 2d 508, 509 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992) (denial of recount for failure to count ballots with "hanging paper chads"). For the court to step away from this established practice, prescribed by the Secretary of State, the state official charged by the legislature with "responsibility to . . . [o]btain and maintain uniformity in the application, operation, and interpretation of the election laws," §97.012(1), was to depart from the legislative scheme.
TO PUT THE MATTER TO REST, I WILL REPEAT IT AGAIN FOR THOSE WHO CONTINUE TO WISH FOR LEGISLATION FROM THE BENCH.
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH DOES NOT CREATE LAW IN THE UNITED STATES
SBD
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anker-Klanker
Admiral
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1033
Location: Richardson, TX
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
A Google search on the name "Greg Palast" (author of the above article), is very revealing. I guess he is an American (maybe by birth), but he claims to live in London and New York, and claims to be a New York Times columnist (so he claims, but I'm not so sure about that).
He identifies himself as a "Progressive Liberal," and his writings reveal him to be a flaming Socialist. Is any more proof needed that they are the same thing? Personally, I'd peg him to the left of the DU/KOS crowd.
For what it's worth... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
