The Hidden Truth Behind 2000 and 2004 Elections

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Bush Responder Theories: Deduction and Analysis through-out history

America's collective problems with its democracy can be narrowed down to two things: Complicit Complacency, and Selfish Laziness. Both definitions unavoidably apply to our consciousness level today, however the good news is that's all starting to change and the actual veil is being lifted.

Higher than 36% of all americans now believe the election was stolen, and have no way of knowing what the actual 2004 results were. Countless BOE's have been fired, and now in fact federal investigations have sprung up in numerous places.

Alot of this may have to do with the fact we didn't buck down, and we didn't roll over. All the Sean Hannity's in the world couldn't change what our gut had told us, and what evidence now firmly backs up. The 12 AM exit polls were forcably changed from their predicted result, to a new "re-weighted" sample which is even sourced in the 2000 election results of political hubris.

This was indeed, not due to the fact at all that large scale voter fraud took place. Which is in actuality the position Jeb Bush and his ilk have you believe. Certainly it couldn't be due to that given the Incident Reporting System is actually tabulating the opposite.

http://www.votersunite.org
When we look at the full mapped data, and see the amount of votes purged in straight-ticket or other, and consequently defaulted to Bush it brings up a stunning template. One that is quite literally irrefutable. Florida chooses to answer this problem, and violently look back over its recorded results. Perhaps the idea of partisanship and collusion has started to be chipped away? The dam beginning to break?

"Because the iVotronic touch-screen machines do not use paper ballots, elections officials may never know for sure -- highlighting a continuing issue with the machines.''I think it's significant that we can't be sure that things can't be counted, compared and investigated all the time,'' said the study's author and University fo Miami Professor Martha Mahoney, who also is a member of the coalition.The news comes weeks after Elections Supervisor Constance Kaplan resigned amid revelations that human error led to the county's iVotronic touch-screen machines tossing out hundreds of votes.

The $24.5 million machines have become such an issue that the county manager has asked the elections department to advise him on whether to keep them.The study's findings were a surprise for the elections department, which had considered the November election a success....The study found that there were 5,917 cases where there were more votes than signatures. ...In at least one case, the problem appears to have been the machine.

At precinct 816, the Church of the Ascension, the number of signatures was 945, a figure verified on the machine. But the number of reported votes that day was 1,116.After testing the machine, its maker, Election Systems & Software, told the state Division of Elections that an internal memory bank failed but the votes were recorded."
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/11586356.htm

The good news is the answer, however slowly, appears to be yes. I brought the full issue of possible programmer complicity, allowing our vote aggregators to be rigged. And not even that long after, they are indeed checking the database codes and coming to the same conclusions: That it was rigged, votes failed to be recorded period. They were purged, deleted, using the various programming code such individuals are accustomed to. I have a degree and I do programming, if you asked me in the beginning if I thought it was possible it would have ended in a resounding "No".

Today after extensive close eye and inquisitive investigation, I can declare the answer is a resounding "Yes". Very little partisan voting officials were used for this operation. Karl Rove's cheap tactics appear in yet another polling methodology, one we seem to not have the guts to face.

The US Department of Agriculture, which I find so connected into this scheme my stomach could turn. Certainly, cencus polling of this nature was not ever done by accident.

http://www.geocities.com/code_breaker_z/ag_contract.jpg - It is truly telling isn't it?

Many days later, the evidence is lacking in the arena to prove the written contracts because it appears the contracts have been almost complicitly removed. However, I'm a mover and a shaker and whatever corruption is really involved I most certainly smoke out. When the contracts are finally displayed here, questions will begin to dissipate. You will just know from experience that they did this, and didn't hide it.

Back to my original evidence critique of the above. So even though it appears the Agriculture Department, endorsed by Jeb Bush of course, punishes and even fines the cencus takers for incorrect or skewed answers, as well as with-held answers, it is still perfectly alright for them to not provide Social Security number during a cencus? Notwithstanding of course, it is still allowed for their personal history or oops, background information to be submitted anyway. Essentially they make the poll decisions for you.

There is very little much of a law regulating that information at all, so if agreed upon they could compile whatever they have in your cencus and then manufacture social security numbers. Let's find out where ghost votes come from. Clearly, they come from a Cencus Bureau who is complicit in driving for public disclosure, while making that disclosure only available to campaigns and supervisor of elections. Rule number 1: Someone stealing and requesting a bogus vote only needs one said piece of information. Data collection by the firm, provides this immediately. Dept. of Agriculture keeps almost all of them listed by number and summarily indexed.

Can't have your cake and eat it too. Can not have this much control over actual cencus polls and not have the ability to engage fraud.

So it is with that lost anecdote that the likes of Rick Brady, Elizabeth Liddle, and other mainstream media types attempt to blame the exit poll problems on Reluctant Bush Responders in all precincts, which given that we do not have a full scale study of the data even retrieved yet, but the theory hits the press anyway that I become thuroughly amused.

What has been suggested all along is not in the large discrepancy between the vote total alone, but the degree to which the two percentages switch places across party line. For a re-weighting to take place where said precinct switches from 51% Kerry, 48% Bush to a whopping 51% Bush, 48% Kerry you not only need a miracle. You might just need god himself to be on your side.

Apparently nobody touched the fact, while Karl Rove looked to his invisible grassroots. Nobody seems to care that the Kerry exit pollsters were removed by the same percentage the Bush exit pollsters increased, and yet the corporate media reports it? Should I really be surprised? Nobody seems to care that the exit poll percentages switching places is impossible.

But should I really be surprised? Should anyone be surprised? Shy Reluctant Bush "AMAZON" Responder theory? I think we can do better then that.

Rick Brady, and their entire group work with www.blackboxvoting.org a "partisan hack" group, claiming to be working for election reform. Most of the media plants come from there, and seemingly, work for the GOP. Elizabeth Liddle even though she comes from another country, claims to be non-partisan. But to this date, Warren-Mitofsky's full exit poll data hasn't been released to anyone with real credentials.

It was released and even handed over to Rick Brady and Elizabeth Liddle. Coincidence?

FACTS ABOUT THE DECEPTIVE MEDIA, MITOFSKY- OWNS VNS: RELUCTANT BUSH RESPONDER WAS OFFICIAL EXSCUSE FOR BUSH-BUCHANON FRAUD

Not many have heard this little tidbit.

"“By early afternoon on the computer screens of the member networks, history seemed to be in the making. In the New Hampshire Republican primary, George Bush led Pat Buchanan by a puny 48 percent to 42 percent. (For some of us with long memories, those numbers seemed spookily familiar. Six New Hampshire primaries back, Lyndon Johnson had edged out Eugene McCarthy by 49 to 42 percent, and a few weeks later Johnson abandoned his bid for re-election.) Those early Bush-Buchanan numbers were never broadcast, but they circulated throughout the day among the coterie of politicians and reporters with access to news unsafe for public consumption. As it turned out, the public in this instance was well served by the embargo. When the real votes came in, Bush had won not by a piddling six but by a solid sixteen percentage points. This was the first appearance of the “Buchanan Bias” in exit poll responses for which Mitofsky in later primaries would try to make adjustments. (In polling usage, it should be noted, the term ‘bias’ has nothing to do with the politics of the pollster. Survey experts define ‘bias’ as error – unlike sampling error, which can be plus or minus – that errs in only one direction. When you find it, it’s not always easy to explain. Mitofsky’s best guess is that Buchanan’s voters were prouder of what they had done and, hence, more prone to respond, than Bush’s were.)” "

http://www.votefraud.org/News/2000/7/071800.html

So Mitofsky has essentially always pulled this exscuse to cover fraud, the jig is up I should say. There's no reason to believe an already proven disinformation argument such as those by a average former "pollster" who works for Dick Cheney. Doing so is like putting faith in a truck covered in mud, no matter your speed the wheels will slide off and the truck will crash. There will always be another exscuse. Too much voter fraud is their real exscuse. When Mitofsky is exposed for helping the autopsy of democracy, someone should get him a nice billboard. We can't have enough of a wrong thing.

-Little by little the truth comes out, Rodney N. blogging away to the chorus.