it really doesn’t matter anymore, because the media, whether in cahoots or
individually, has effectively stonewalled Sanders into oblivion…unbelievable.
On Apr 29, 2016, at 3:20 PM, Richard Driscoll <llocsirdsr@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl:
A very interesting analysis.
Richard
On 4/29/2016 11:33 AM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
I think that it is true of many Sander supporters, Richard.
Right Wing or Left Wing, we are still driven by the same emotions, and
we still come from the same gene pool.
But still, Sander's followers appear to be turned toward collective
power, while Trump's followers are simply angry, revengeful
individuals, thrashing out at anything that moves.
Carl Jarvis
On 4/28/16, Richard Driscoll <llocsirdsr@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl:
I would conjecture that one could say or make the same comments
regarding Bernie Sanders. Are his followers 'malcontents'? Do they
visualize him as a 'Savior'? Is he fanning their anger?
Richard
On 4/28/2016 11:39 AM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Exactly so, Miriam.
What is unnerving are the numbers of malcontents who see Donald Trump
as their Savior. Rather than challenging them to think for
themselves, Trump is fanning their anger. It's interesting, two
leaders, one stirring up hatred and violence, while the other is
teaching the value of a cooperative, involved society.
The lines are very well defined. I know which side the Empire is on.
Carl Jarvis
On 4/28/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think that Bernie did articulate, for a lot of people, what their
discontent and anger was about, and he provided them an opportunity to
show
the establishment, how they were feeling. Yes, movements come from the
people, but they always have leaders, and this just has to do with
differences in people's temperaments and talents. The people had to be
ready, and Bernie had to be there to say what they were feeling. But he
did
a lot of educating during those speeches. He taught them socialist
theory.
He talked about class structure and he talked about how the ruling class
tries to divide people. It was a two way interaction.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 11:12 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Is Hillary Stealing the Nomination? Will
Bernie Birth a Long-Term Movement?
Did Bernie Sanders "energize" millions of people? Or were they already
out
there, just waiting for a Bernie to rise up and lead them.
Whatever the real answer is, this upheaval has been a long time in the
making. If Bernie is not allowed a fair run at the nomination by the
Democrat Central Bosses, and the current Movement is moved, by the
Corporate
Media, to nothing more than a back page story, millions of discontented
Americans will still be there, waiting for another opening, educating
themselves in the College of Hard Knocks, to be better prepared to take
on
Goliath.
While I am no fan of Clinton, she is not the one stealing the election
from
Sanders. The Party leadership will not accept Sanders as their
representative, period.
Carl Jarvis
On 4/28/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Excerpt: "Whatever happens with the nomination, we respectfullyMovement?
request that Bernie soon organize a broad series of grassroots
gatherings where those who have worked so hard for him will get the
best possible training and inspiration toward becoming lifelong
activists who'll make a tangible difference in the day-to-day business
of saving this planet."
Hillary Clinton. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty)
Is Hillary Stealing the Nomination? Will Bernie Birth a Long-Term
By Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman, Reader Supported Newsterrifying.
27 April 16
At this delicate moment in the primary season, we all need to take a
deep breath and evaluate what comes next.
Bernie Sanders has a mathematical chance to win. But Hillary seems the
likely Democratic nominee.
Donald Trump has an army of delegates. But if he doesn't win on the
first ballot, Paul Ryan could be the Republican nominee.
Oy!
For a wide variety of reasons, we believe Hillary and Bernie could
beat Trump. But we're not sure about Ryan, who we find absolutely
Key is the stripping of our voter rolls. Millions of Democrats havedifference.
already been disenfranchised. In a close race, that could make the
Also key is the flipping of the electronic vote count, which few onHuffington Post.
the left seem to be willing to face in all its depressing finality.
Both are explored in our new Strip & Flip Selection of 2016: Five Jim
Crows & Electronic Election Theft (introduced by Mimi Kennedy and Greg
Palast) at www.freepress.org and www.solartopia.org.
As Greens, we believe this election's most critical imperative is that
Bernie convert the HUGE upwelling of mostly young grassroots
discontent he has ignited into a long-term multi-issue movement. His
success won't be measured by whether he wins the nomination or
presidency. Miles Mogulescu has written nicely about this at The
It matters most that those he's energized emerge after November fullminutes.
of commitment and heart. We've seen too many electoral campaigns feed
into a general "disillusionment" when they don't win the vote count.
We've seen too many youthful uprisings too quickly dissipate.
As geezer vets of the civil rights, anti-war, No Nukes, social
justice, election protection and other campaigns, we desperately want
all these brilliant folks of all ages to take on the issues nearest to
their hearts with renewed ferocity in the coming months, years,
decades.
Having awakened this glorious beast, we need Professor Sanders to
teach this class of '16 the ultimate lessons in staying power (of
which he is such a sterling example).
So whatever happens with the nomination, we respectfully request that
Bernie soon organize a broad series of grassroots gatherings where
those who have worked so hard for him will get the best possible
training and inspiration toward becoming lifelong activists who'll
make a tangible difference in the day-to-day business of saving this
planet.
We all know that some meaningful changes can be made by putting better
people in office. But in in the long run it's the nitty-gritty grind
of facing down the corporations issue by issue, place by place, nuke
by nuke, that will save us.
Along the way there's the collapse of our electoral system. From Jimmy
Carter to Harvard to the UN and so many others who've studied it, it's
patently obvious the mechanisms by which we conduct elections in this
country are ridiculously decrepit and corrupt.
As a partial solution, we've concocted the "Ohio Plan," which demands:
universal automatic voter registration at age 18; a four-day national
holiday for voting; voter ID based on a signature that matches the
registration form with stiff felony penalties for cheating; universal
hand-counted paper ballots.
We also want money out of politics, public-funded campaigns, an end to
gerrymandering, and abolition of the Electoral College.
In 2016, the first thing to face is the massive disenfranchisement of
millions of voters, mostly citizens of color and youth. We are
heartened to see Bernie and Hillary joined together in an Arizona
lawsuit.
But the long lines and urban registration stripping that we saw in
Phoenix, Madison, and elsewhere this spring will spell doom for the
Democrats if they cannot guarantee their constituencies' the right to
vote in November.
At this point, we're not optimistic. The efforts at re-enfranchisement
are little and late. Among those doing superb work on this stripping
of our voter rolls are the great Greg Palast (www.gregpalast.com), Ari
Berman ofThe Nation, and others.
But the electronic flipping of the alleged vote count remains a demon
black box. The 2000 election was turned from Gore to Bush by
electronic manipulations in Volusia County, Florida. The 2004 election
was turned from Kerry to Bush in a Chattanooga basement which
transformed a 4.2% Democratic lead into a 2.5% GOP victory in 90 dark
All that could happen again in 2016.v.
Over the years we've respected the work of The Nation's Josh Holland,
who's expressed concern about our reporting on indications of
irregularities that seem to favor Hillary over Bernie.
But our stated conclusions on them remain far from conclusive. If we
thought we had definitive evidence that the Clinton campaign was
stealing the nomination from the Sanders campaign, we'd say so in
direct, explicit and unmistakable phrases.
Simply put: we do NOT at this point believe they rise to the level of
provable theft, as we are certain was the case in 2000 and 2004.
We understand concerns and welcome the dialogue. But we'd like to
avoid the usual circular firing squad.
Writing in The Nation, Josh has deemed it important to mention
disagreements with our former collaborator Steve Rosenfeld, and our
good friend Mark Hertsgaard.
Mark's writing on global warming has been legend. In 2004 he
criticized some of our reporting on the Ohio vote count. We disagreed
with him then and still do. Nothing in the past 12 years of our
research and writing while based in central Ohio has surfaced that
would make us change our reporting on how the 2004 election was
stolen. Quite the opposite.
But other comments on the nature of electronic election theft throw up
a HUGE red flag. And here we worry about a dangerous gap in the work
from The Nation and the left as a whole.
If international election standards were applied to the 2016
primaries, eight states - Georgia, Massachusetts, Alabama, Texas,
Mississippi, Ohio, New York, Tennessee - would be investigated for
suspected fraudulent election results, because the actual vote
deviates so greatly from the exit polls. Also, the exit polls
indicated that Sanders won in Illinois, Massachusetts and Missouri.
The bottom line is this: there is no viable method for monitoring or
verifying the electronic vote count in 2016. In a close race, which we
expect this fall, the outcome could be flipped in key swing states
where GOP governors and secretaries of state are running the
elections. This includes most notably Ohio, Michigan, Iowa and
Arizona, plus North Carolina and Florida (where the situations are
slightly different).
Steve has called this "a stretch." He and Josh seem to dismiss the
assertion that an election can be electronically stolen as "conspiracy
theory,"
apparently based on the idea that such thefts would become obvious
fodder for an infuriated media and public outrage.
This we find this overly trusting and dangerous. Under our current
system there is no way to counter-indicate a stolen electronic vote
count except by exit polling, for which Josh has expressed contempt.
Exit polls in other countries (especially Germany) are highly
reliable; here the raw data is too, but can be hard to get. And it's
now standard procedure to have the public numbers "adjusted" to fit
official vote counts, fraudulent or otherwise.
And even raw data exit polls have no legal standing. Nor, apparently,
does the court system itself.
After the 2004 election, we won a ruling in the King Lincoln
Bronzeville
Blackwell federal lawsuit. Bob was lead attorney, Harvey a plaintiff.election is "conspiracy theory."
Judge Algernon Marbley ordered Ohio's 88 county election boards to
compile their records and bring them to Columbus for an official
recount. But 56 of those
88 counties failed to produce the requested records. Some boards of
elections "accidentally" destroyed all of the requested ballots. No
one was prosecuted. There was never a recount.
Admitted into evidence in the lawsuit was the Ohio secretary of
state's architectural map of the computer network used to count Ohio's
votes. It is included here so everyone can take a look.
The votes were counted by private contractors in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.
The
three main companies involved were all heavily linked to the Right to
Life movement in Ohio. The Free Press also uncovered the contract
where these companies arranged with the Secretary of State's office a
year prior to the
2004 election to move the Ohio vote count to Tennessee should Ohio's
supercomputers fail on Election Day, which would happen for the first
time in known history. Cyber-security expert Stephen Spoonamore told
the Free Pressthat the computer configuration was set up to allow a
"man in the middle attack" to alter Ohio's votes.
The late night shift in the 2004 electronic vote count in 10 decisive
swing states was by all accounts a "virtual statistical
impossibility," with the odds against that happening in the millions.
But now we are being told the idea that this could indicate a stolen
PLEASE!!! If someone - anyone! - can demonstrate EXACTLY how thevoting secure.
electronic vote count will be monitored, verified and made clear to
the media in 2016, and then guarantee that the public and the courts
will react with enforceable fury, we will be eternally grateful.
We hope in the meantime The Nationwill add to Ari Berman's fine
reporting on the stripping of voter eligibilities an in-depth
investigation into the "other shoe" of election theft - the flipping
of the electronic vote count.
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) raised the "Diebold question" at a
Congressional Black Caucus hearing on April 21, 2016. Johnson noted
how easy it would be to hack the old voting machines, many that are
over 20 years old, and vowed to introduce legislation that would make
Finally, we are often asked how, if the 2000 and 2004 elections wereless.
stolen, Obama won in 2008 and 2012. We did, after all, write in 2004
that the 2008 election was being rigged.
The answer is simple: it was. But Obama won by far too many votes to
have that election credibly stolen. And his campaign was not in denial.
We are happy to hear from Steve that our reporting on Ohio 2004 might
have enhanced Obama's scrutiny on the 2008 vote count.
But it should be made clear that Obama's victory could easily have
been flipped had the vote count been closer and had fewer states been
so definitively won. We believe he actually won by more than 10
million votes in both 2008 and 2012, but was officially credited with
far
Where, exactly, is the line beyond which an election can't be stolen?our government.
Do the Democrats need to win by 5%. 10%. to get an official victory?
And what then happens to the down-ballot races?
We prefer not to see those limits tested again.
And we need to have people prepared to take tangible action. In 2012
Bob Fitrakis filed a successful Election Day lawsuit preventing
illegal computer patches being rigged into Ohio's electronic machines.
In a closer race, those patches might have made the difference. We
believe the expectation that they would work did cause Karl Rove to do
his legendary flipped-out double-take on Fox News as he was told Mitt
Romney had lost Ohio.
We also reported (as did The Nation) that voting machines in key
Cincinnati precincts were financially linked to the Romney family. We
each wrote separate articles about that and were each blacklisted by
Daily Kos for doing so, even though the vast bulk of Harvey's 150+
previous blogs on that site were about nuclear power and renewable
energy.
Some publications that aren't progressive understand the problem.
Twenty-three minutes into the 2012 Election Day, Forbes took the Free
Pressreporting seriously, and warned voters of the dangers of private,
for-profit companies owning and maintaining voting machines.
Over the years we've been repeatedly told that we should stop
reporting on electronic election theft because it might discourage
voter turnout. And that the key to a Democratic victory in 2016 will
be another massive vote count victory that will be "too big to steal."
Frankly, we don't see that happening this year.
And we find such talk deeply disturbing. We have no doubt that
innumerable US House and Senate races have been stolen over the years,
along with governorships, control of state legislatures, referenda and
more, all of it producing a deep reinforcement of the corporate control
of
We're also reasonably certain that neither Hillary nor Bernie isCalifornia.
likely to amass in November a margin of victory over either Ryan or
Trump that would be big enough to negate the possibility of massive
disenfranchisement and electronic vote flipping in key states like
Ohio, Michigan, Iowa or Arizona.
And anyway . why the hell are we even thinking about leaving such a
problem unsolved?
This disease needs a definitive cure.
We look forward to further reasoned and reasonable dialogue. We invite
Josh and Ari to join us on our panel at the upcoming Left Forum in New
York in May. We welcome a public discussion with Steve and Mark in
Above all, we hope to see those millions of Bernie supporters joiningwww.solartopia.org).
us at the reactor sites, the banks, the women's health centers, the
shelters, the schools and so many other critical hot spots in our
corporate-plagued society, no matter who wins (or how) in November.
________________________________________
Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman are co-authors of six books on
election integrity, including the new Strip & Flip Selection of 2016:
Five Jim Crows and Electronic Election Theft(www.freepress.org and
Bob's Fitrakis Files are at www.freepress.org. Harvey's Organic SpiralMovement?
of US History is coming soon at www.solartopia.org.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work.
Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
Hillary Clinton. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty)
http://readersupportednews.org/http://readersupportednews.org/
Is Hillary Stealing the Nomination? Will Bernie Birth a Long-Term
By Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman, Reader Supported Newsterrifying.
27 April 16
t this delicate moment in the primary season, we all need to take a
deep breath and evaluate what comes next.
Bernie Sanders has a mathematical chance to win. But Hillary seems the
likely Democratic nominee.
Donald Trump has an army of delegates. But if he doesn't win on the
first ballot, Paul Ryan could be the Republican nominee.
Oy!
For a wide variety of reasons, we believe Hillary and Bernie could
beat Trump. But we're not sure about Ryan, who we find absolutely
Key is the stripping of our voter rolls. Millions of Democrats havedifference.
already been disenfranchised. In a close race, that could make the
Also key is the flipping of the electronic vote count, which few onHuffington Post.
the left seem to be willing to face in all its depressing finality.
Both are explored in our new Strip & Flip Selection of 2016: Five Jim
Crows & Electronic Election Theft (introduced by Mimi Kennedy and Greg
Palast) at www.freepress.org and www.solartopia.org.
As Greens, we believe this election's most critical imperative is that
Bernie convert the HUGE upwelling of mostly young grassroots
discontent he has ignited into a long-term multi-issue movement. His
success won't be measured by whether he wins the nomination or
presidency. Miles Mogulescu has written nicely about this at The
It matters most that those he's energized emerge after November fullminutes.
of commitment and heart. We've seen too many electoral campaigns feed
into a general "disillusionment" when they don't win the vote count.
We've seen too many youthful uprisings too quickly dissipate.
As geezer vets of the civil rights, anti-war, No Nukes, social
justice, election protection and other campaigns, we desperately want
all these brilliant folks of all ages to take on the issues nearest to
their hearts with renewed ferocity in the coming months, years,
decades.
Having awakened this glorious beast, we need Professor Sanders to
teach this class of '16 the ultimate lessons in staying power (of
which he is such a sterling example).
So whatever happens with the nomination, we respectfully request that
Bernie soon organize a broad series of grassroots gatherings where
those who have worked so hard for him will get the best possible
training and inspiration toward becoming lifelong activists who'll
make a tangible difference in the day-to-day business of saving this
planet.
We all know that some meaningful changes can be made by putting better
people in office. But in in the long run it's the nitty-gritty grind
of facing down the corporations issue by issue, place by place, nuke
by nuke, that will save us.
Along the way there's the collapse of our electoral system. From Jimmy
Carter to Harvard to the UN and so many others who've studied it, it's
patently obvious the mechanisms by which we conduct elections in this
country are ridiculously decrepit and corrupt.
As a partial solution, we've concocted the "Ohio Plan," which demands:
universal automatic voter registration at age 18; a four-day national
holiday for voting; voter ID based on a signature that matches the
registration form with stiff felony penalties for cheating; universal
hand-counted paper ballots.
We also want money out of politics, public-funded campaigns, an end to
gerrymandering, and abolition of the Electoral College.
In 2016, the first thing to face is the massive disenfranchisement of
millions of voters, mostly citizens of color and youth. We are
heartened to see Bernie and Hillary joined together in an Arizona
lawsuit.
But the long lines and urban registration stripping that we saw in
Phoenix, Madison, and elsewhere this spring will spell doom for the
Democrats if they cannot guarantee their constituencies' the right to
vote in November.
At this point, we're not optimistic. The efforts at re-enfranchisement
are little and late. Among those doing superb work on this stripping
of our voter rolls are the great Greg Palast (www.gregpalast.com), Ari
Berman ofThe Nation, and others.
But the electronic flipping of the alleged vote count remains a demon
black box. The 2000 election was turned from Gore to Bush by
electronic manipulations in Volusia County, Florida. The 2004 election
was turned from Kerry to Bush in a Chattanooga basement which
transformed a 4.2% Democratic lead into a 2.5% GOP victory in 90 dark
All that could happen again in 2016.v.
Over the years we've respected the work of The Nation's Josh Holland,
who's expressed concern about our reporting on indications of
irregularities that seem to favor Hillary over Bernie.
But our stated conclusions on them remain far from conclusive. If we
thought we had definitive evidence that the Clinton campaign was
stealing the nomination from the Sanders campaign, we'd say so in
direct, explicit and unmistakable phrases.
Simply put: we do NOT at this point believe they rise to the level of
provable theft, as we are certain was the case in 2000 and 2004.
We understand concerns and welcome the dialogue. But we'd like to
avoid the usual circular firing squad.
Writing in The Nation, Josh has deemed it important to mention
disagreements with our former collaborator Steve Rosenfeld, and our
good friend Mark Hertsgaard.
Mark's writing on global warming has been legend. In 2004 he
criticized some of our reporting on the Ohio vote count. We disagreed
with him then and still do. Nothing in the past 12 years of our
research and writing while based in central Ohio has surfaced that
would make us change our reporting on how the 2004 election was
stolen. Quite the opposite.
But other comments on the nature of electronic election theft throw up
a HUGE red flag. And here we worry about a dangerous gap in the work
from The Nation and the left as a whole.
If international election standards were applied to the 2016
primaries, eight states - Georgia, Massachusetts, Alabama, Texas,
Mississippi, Ohio, New York, Tennessee - would be investigated for
suspected fraudulent election results, because the actual vote
deviates so greatly from the exit polls. Also, the exit polls
indicated that Sanders won in Illinois, Massachusetts and Missouri.
The bottom line is this: there is no viable method for monitoring or
verifying the electronic vote count in 2016. In a close race, which we
expect this fall, the outcome could be flipped in key swing states
where GOP governors and secretaries of state are running the
elections. This includes most notably Ohio, Michigan, Iowa and
Arizona, plus North Carolina and Florida (where the situations are
slightly different).
Steve has called this "a stretch." He and Josh seem to dismiss the
assertion that an election can be electronically stolen as "conspiracy
theory,"
apparently based on the idea that such thefts would become obvious
fodder for an infuriated media and public outrage.
This we find this overly trusting and dangerous. Under our current
system there is no way to counter-indicate a stolen electronic vote
count except by exit polling, for which Josh has expressed contempt.
Exit polls in other countries (especially Germany) are highly
reliable; here the raw data is too, but can be hard to get. And it's
now standard procedure to have the public numbers "adjusted" to fit
official vote counts, fraudulent or otherwise.
And even raw data exit polls have no legal standing. Nor, apparently,
does the court system itself.
After the 2004 election, we won a ruling in the King Lincoln
Bronzeville
Blackwell federal lawsuit. Bob was lead attorney, Harvey a plaintiff.election is "conspiracy theory."
Judge Algernon Marbley ordered Ohio's 88 county election boards to
compile their records and bring them to Columbus for an official
recount. But 56 of those
88 counties failed to produce the requested records. Some boards of
elections "accidentally" destroyed all of the requested ballots. No
one was prosecuted. There was never a recount.
Admitted into evidence in the lawsuit was the Ohio secretary of
state's architectural map of the computer network used to count Ohio's
votes. It is included here so everyone can take a look.
The votes were counted by private contractors in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.
The
three main companies involved were all heavily linked to the Right to
Life movement in Ohio. The Free Press also uncovered the contract
where these companies arranged with the Secretary of State's office a
year prior to the
2004 election to move the Ohio vote count to Tennessee should Ohio's
supercomputers fail on Election Day, which would happen for the first
time in known history. Cyber-security expert Stephen Spoonamore told
the Free Pressthat the computer configuration was set up to allow a
"man in the middle attack" to alter Ohio's votes.
The late night shift in the 2004 electronic vote count in 10 decisive
swing states was by all accounts a "virtual statistical
impossibility," with the odds against that happening in the millions.
But now we are being told the idea that this could indicate a stolen
PLEASE!!! If someone - anyone! - can demonstrate EXACTLY how thevoting secure.
electronic vote count will be monitored, verified and made clear to
the media in 2016, and then guarantee that the public and the courts
will react with enforceable fury, we will be eternally grateful.
We hope in the meantime The Nationwill add to Ari Berman's fine
reporting on the stripping of voter eligibilities an in-depth
investigation into the "other shoe" of election theft - the flipping
of the electronic vote count.
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) raised the "Diebold question" at a
Congressional Black Caucus hearing on April 21, 2016. Johnson noted
how easy it would be to hack the old voting machines, many that are
over 20 years old, and vowed to introduce legislation that would make
Finally, we are often asked how, if the 2000 and 2004 elections wereless.
stolen, Obama won in 2008 and 2012. We did, after all, write in 2004
that the 2008 election was being rigged.
The answer is simple: it was. But Obama won by far too many votes to
have that election credibly stolen. And his campaign was not in denial.
We are happy to hear from Steve that our reporting on Ohio 2004 might
have enhanced Obama's scrutiny on the 2008 vote count.
But it should be made clear that Obama's victory could easily have
been flipped had the vote count been closer and had fewer states been
so definitively won. We believe he actually won by more than 10
million votes in both 2008 and 2012, but was officially credited with
far
Where, exactly, is the line beyond which an election can't be stolen?our government.
Do the Democrats need to win by 5%. 10%. to get an official victory?
And what then happens to the down-ballot races?
We prefer not to see those limits tested again.
And we need to have people prepared to take tangible action. In 2012
Bob Fitrakis filed a successful Election Day lawsuit preventing
illegal computer patches being rigged into Ohio's electronic machines.
In a closer race, those patches might have made the difference. We
believe the expectation that they would work did cause Karl Rove to do
his legendary flipped-out double-take on Fox News as he was told Mitt
Romney had lost Ohio.
We also reported (as did The Nation) that voting machines in key
Cincinnati precincts were financially linked to the Romney family. We
each wrote separate articles about that and were each blacklisted by
Daily Kos for doing so, even though the vast bulk of Harvey's 150+
previous blogs on that site were about nuclear power and renewable
energy.
Some publications that aren't progressive understand the problem.
Twenty-three minutes into the 2012 Election Day, Forbes took the Free
Pressreporting seriously, and warned voters of the dangers of private,
for-profit companies owning and maintaining voting machines.
Over the years we've been repeatedly told that we should stop
reporting on electronic election theft because it might discourage
voter turnout. And that the key to a Democratic victory in 2016 will
be another massive vote count victory that will be "too big to steal."
Frankly, we don't see that happening this year.
And we find such talk deeply disturbing. We have no doubt that
innumerable US House and Senate races have been stolen over the years,
along with governorships, control of state legislatures, referenda and
more, all of it producing a deep reinforcement of the corporate control
of
We're also reasonably certain that neither Hillary nor Bernie isCalifornia.
likely to amass in November a margin of victory over either Ryan or
Trump that would be big enough to negate the possibility of massive
disenfranchisement and electronic vote flipping in key states like
Ohio, Michigan, Iowa or Arizona.
And anyway . why the hell are we even thinking about leaving such a
problem unsolved?
This disease needs a definitive cure.
We look forward to further reasoned and reasonable dialogue. We invite
Josh and Ari to join us on our panel at the upcoming Left Forum in New
York in May. We welcome a public discussion with Steve and Mark in
Above all, we hope to see those millions of Bernie supporters joiningwww.solartopia.org).
us at the reactor sites, the banks, the women's health centers, the
shelters, the schools and so many other critical hot spots in our
corporate-plagued society, no matter who wins (or how) in November.
Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman are co-authors of six books on
election integrity, including the new Strip & Flip Selection of 2016:
Five Jim Crows and Electronic Election Theft(www.freepress.org and
Bob's Fitrakis Files are at www.freepress.org. Harvey's Organic Spiral
of US History is coming soon at www.solartopia.org.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work.
Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
