FINAL ARGUMENT "It's about the Machines, Stupid"

It is simple

You really don’t need to read a ton of articles or view hundreds of You Tube videos to “get it”. It is really very simple if you just read and understand the statement:

FACT: The computer systems called vote machines that count the vast majority of ballots in the U.S.A. are supplied by a few private corporations. These few corporate entities write the programming for these machines with no real oversight of any independent government agency, elected official. No one outside the secret sanctum of the corporation is allowed to see the programming code used to count your vote.

That’s it. It is clear that the ball has been dropped. The underpinning of our whole voting system is a secret that is intrusted to a handful of private corporations.

Every other corporate owned consumer utility, drilling operation, waste treatment facility, and toy manufacturer is fraught with all the regulations that conservatives complain about – but not the few corporate election vendors that count your vote! The problem could not be more obvious. Every other human activity from drawing a glass of water from your home tap to digging a hole in your back yard is guarded and regulated for your protection – but not your vote. What could be more obvious – more simple?

Warning – Alert!: If you acknowledge this obvious problem, you will fall into the a stigmatized sub culture that is oddly similar to that of the mentally ill. You fill the same seat in a conversation as a person who suffers from major depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder – you have become a “conspiracy theorist”. As you find yourself posting charts and spread sheets of election anomalies on your face book page, you may begin to discover how the posts are not being “liked” by your established circle of friends and they drop you from their list. All because, you are pointing out the most obvious flaw in our democracy that is really a “no brainer”: computers, provided by a few corporations, count votes secretly.

Denial on the part of the progressive cable TV press

The loss of your face book friends is one thing, but when the pundits who you have come to love and respect seem oblivious to the obvious, “no brainer” problem in our electronic voting system, it is a real slap in the face. I really enjoy the compassion and intelligence of the pundits on MSNBC – FOX not so much. Big surprise. So when I watch and listen to Chuck Todd (The Dialy Rundown), Chris Jansing (Jansing and Company), or Chris Mathews (Hard Ball) and discover how their words reflect the same pattern of denial as all those lost face book friends – it really hurts.

And many election activists wonder

How can Chuck Todd deny the importance of statistics?

His whole schtick on the “Daily Rundown” is based on statistical information provided by major polling sources. He moves whole states back and forth from the Romney Column to the Obama Column to demonstrate the “Paths to the White House” or the “Swing State Firewall”, – and all this magical juggling of numbers is based on – what? Statistics.

We know that vote machine vendors hold proprietary, secret codes to count our votes. The “Path to Proof” – the only “Stolen Vote Firewall” is – what? Statistics. Oh and there are plenty of statistics that have been produced in the past decade. Yet, what does Chuck Todd, who lives and breaths statistics to fuel his fine show, have to say about the statistics proving election fraud?

How can the smart and pleasant Chris Jansing appear so clueless?

Immediately after a witty revelation of lack of compassion for women signaled by Mitt Romney’s “binders full of women” comment, her words about “hanging chads” reflected the same lack of compassion for many who have researched and exposed election fraud for the past decade. The only term she could come up with to address election fraud is a cliche from over a decade ago – from the 2000 Bush/Gore race that fueled the creation of the secret code, voting machine take over of our elections in the first place?

Chris Jansing Oct 22 Do you think we could have some “hanging chad” situations on election night?

How can my favorite political pundit, Chris Mathews, use a corporate name of a voting machine corporation that no longer exists?

Mathew’s comment on hard ball really made me spill my coffee. I so respect this man and his ability to arm and then disarm an argument while rolling left or right like Aaron Rogers rolling out of the pocket to complete a pass. Yet, using the corporate name Diebold was a clear quarterback sack of the passer in the eyes of election fraud activists, suggesting that he had not done his homework on the subject some years. The corporate election machine vendors are as covert as they are secretive and change their brand with the frequency of a internet roofing company. Diebold has shed its identity several times over the years -Election Systems & Software (ES&S), Prmiere, Premier Election Solutions, and Diebold are all the same corporation. They just keep changing their name. I wonder why? I also wonder why Cris Mathews seems oblivious to the fact:

<strong?Chris Mathews Nov 1 What about Diebold?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s