|Van on Sun, 5 Dec 2004 10:31:36 +0100 (CET)|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|Re: [Nettime-nl] Ukraine: US-Engineered Coup or European Revolution?|
Kerry Won the Election by at least 1,7 Million Votes by Brad Menfil The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MEN412A.html ---------- Brad Menfil is not my real name. I work for the RNC [Republican National Committee]. I fear reprisals if I'm found out. The truth about this election is this: Florida and Ohio had to go for Bush in order for him to "win" the election. In reality he lost both states. In fact, he did not even win the popular vote. He lost the national popular vote by at least 1,750,000. This shows you the scale of the fraud. The exit polls were not wrong. Kerry was the clear winner, but victory was snatched from him. Florida first. The 200,000+ margin of victory for Bush made this state uncontestable. Everybody assumes that even with some fraud, Kerry could never have made up the difference in a recount. But Kerry actually won by about 750,000 votes. The numbers were changed by a computer program (in both electronic and scan-tron voting systems) called "KerryLite." "KerryLite" of course is not the actual name of the program. The actual name is 11-5-18-18 etc. For additional encryption, the numbers were jumbled but I'm not sure in which order. The numbers replace the letters of the alphabet. For example, K is the eleventh letter of the alphabet. So the if-then statement goes something like this: "if total true Kerry>total true Bush, Bush x 1.04x (.04 is a random number)(total true Kerry), total true Bush". The second part of the equation takes the total number of votes cast and subtracts the new Bush total, subtracts the third party totals and leaves the rest for Kerry. Sometimes the program would also reduce third party votes and award them to Bush. And even where Bush legitimately won, he was still awarded additional votes. The big Democratic counties (Broward for example) went to Kerry because it had to appear that everything was on the up and up. It's interesting to see this unfold. Does anybody wonder why the Republican counties were mostly counted after the Democratic counties? You should wonder, and also know that this was no accident. The Bush team had to make up the votes as the night went on. In Ohio, computer voting fraud, vote tossing and voter suppression were the main methods. Vote tossing was simply the removal of Kerry votes and some third party votes. In some areas, the Bush vs. Kerry votes were absurd. Nine to one, eight to two. Voter suppression took the form of making voters stand in four hour long lines. This of course took place in Democratic areas. The simplest thing to do was to have too few voting machines. Sometimes that's all it takes. People eventually lose patience and leave without casting a vote. In other states such as New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire, Kerry's leads evaporated very quickly once the polls were shut down. Kerry only won New Hampshire, but barely. As it turned out, the lead was 6% for Kerry in that state and not enough fraudulent activity took place to flip the state to Bush. So this will all come out and be known to everyone. Nothing this massive can be kept a secret. You're already beginning to see these "irregularities" and the whisper will become a roar. ---------- To become a Member of Global Research To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global Research's News and Discussion Forum , at http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/index.php The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global Research (Canada) articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title of the article are not modified. -- -- ----- Original Message ----- From: "jo van der spek" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 10:10 AM Subject: [Nettime-nl] Ukraine: US-Engineered Coup or European Revolution? > December 3, 2004, Volume 1, Number 23 > > > DEMOCRACY DIGEST > > The Weekly Bulletin of the Transatlantic Democracy Network > www.demdigest.net > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ > > The "Orange Revolution": US-Engineered Coup or European Model of Peaceful > Revolution? > > Yet the election has revealed a disturbing ambivalence towards democratization > on the part of some commentators, particularly in western Europe, as reflected > in allegations that democratizing efforts in Serbia, Georgia and now Ukraine > have been "funded and organised by the US government, deploying US > consultancies, pollsters, diplomats, the two big American parties and US > non-government organizations." "For too long now we have gone along with the > idea that spreading democracy on our terms is all good," a former British > diplomat complains in The Independent newspaper, decrying European complicity > in democracy promotion. > > In one of the more distasteful contributions to the debate, Jonathan Steele, > chief foreign correspondent of the London-based Guardian, suggests that > Ukraine's orange revolution is nothing more than a "postmodern coup d'etat." > Through tenuous and contentious associations, Steele hints that the > pro-Yuschenko forces share nationalistic, secessionist and anti-semitic > sentiments. > > As Timothy Garton Ash notes, observing events through a prism of > anti-Americanism distorts one's perspective. "This is a version of our European > model of peaceful revolution, with the aim of rejoining Europe, not America," > he argues, berating those who complain of US and EU support for Ukraine's > democrats. > > These conspiracy theories--by no means unique to Europe--reveal a mechanistic > approach to politics, suggesting that popular movements can be artificially > manufactured and that resources determine success. As the Washington Post's > Anne Applebaum notes, they not only overrate the influence of US money and > organizations, as the example of Belarus attests, but also neglect the > countervailing forces of authoritarianism. Unlike any western politicians, > Russia's President visited Ukraine twice to campaign for "his" candidate and > deployed considerable resources of his own to counteract democratic forces. > > Interventions by Western or any other agencies will only be effective in > mobilizing popular support for democratic change where and when they reflect or > feed into otherwise latent demands for change. "People have been suppressed, > manipulated, downtrodden for so long, that this is resulting in an explosion of > their best instincts," said Nadia Diuk, director for Europe and Eurasia at the > National Endowment for Democracy. "People are saying, 'We're not going to take > the manipulation of the media, and its control of the citizens, anymore.'" Even > the previously quiescent media have grown more assertive. The Ukrainian TV > channel 1 + 1 had been "very much in support of the government and the > government's candidates," Diuk said. "But last week, news readers and news > anchors decided they were not going to read the news just as it was handed down > to them." > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- ______________________________________________________ * Verspreid via nettime-nl. Commercieel gebruik niet * toegestaan zonder toestemming. <nettime-nl> is een * open en ongemodereerde mailinglist over net-kritiek. * Meer info, archief & anderstalige edities: * http://www.nettime.org/. * Contact: Menno Grootveld (firstname.lastname@example.org). ______________________________________________________ * Verspreid via nettime-nl. Commercieel gebruik niet * toegestaan zonder toestemming. <nettime-nl> is een * open en ongemodereerde mailinglist over net-kritiek. * Meer info, archief & anderstalige edities: * http://www.nettime.org/. * Contact: Menno Grootveld (email@example.com).