Will the real U.S. President please step forward?

[paul108]

How Bush Lost Florida But Won

In The Supreme Court And The Media

 

by jerry politex, www.bushwatch.com

 

Ever since Bush was selected by the Supreme Court by a vote of 5-4 to take over the U.S. presidency, the Dems have said that a fair and thorough recounting of the Florida vote would prove that Gore won. While the jury is still out on whether the reported Consortium recount, published late Sunday November 11, was fair and thorough, let's assume that it was. What does it tell us? It tells us that Gore won the Florida electoral vote, the U.S. Supreme Court took the presidency away from him, and the media is wrong in reporting otherwise. Here's how Bush lost Florida.

 

First, it is an established fact that Gore beat Bush in the national popular vote by over a half million votes. (*) Secondly, Consortium interpretations of the voting data conclude that thousands more people voted for Gore in Florida than Bush. The problem for Gore is that many more votes in his favor were declared invalid than similar votes for Bush. Third, discounting such invalid votes, Consortium interpretations conclude that Gore still beat Bush statewide in Florida by a thin margin of under 200 votes. Which brings us back to the Supreme Court decision.

 

In its Dec. 12 decision the Supreme Court indicated that its conclusions were based upon equal protection law, and decided that in order to have equal voter protection in Florida the entire state should be recounted. However, even though there were weeks left for such a recount prior to the formal reception of the states' electoral college votes in Congress, the court decided that there wasn't enough time for such a recount, so five of nine members of the court decided, along party lines, to select Bush as the winner in Florida. The Consortium data indicates that they were wrong to think that Bush had won the popular vote in Florida. At any rate, in its Dec. 12 decision the Court made clear that if it hadn't selected Bush, its fallback decision would have been to call for a statewide election, since it considered the case to be a matter of equal rights. It further indicated that not taking a position on the matter was not an option.

 

Strangely, not one media member of the Consortium has reached the conclusion that if the Supreme Court had not selected Bush, Gore would have won the election by a Florida recount. Instead, in every instance of Consortium reporting, the big headlines say the data shows Bush won with more "valid votes," that he won because of the partial recount mandated by the Florida Supreme Court, or that he won because he would have had more votes than Gore under Gore's recount request. Buried in some of the stories are the six ways that Gore could have won. However, all of these suppositions are moot.

 

The unvarnished fact is that the U.S. Supreme Court had the final say on the election, not the Consortium voting data, and, left with the choice of giving the election back to the people of Florida through a statewide recount or selecting Bush, they selected Bush. That's what makes the New York Times headline for the Consortium story particularly egregious: "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast The Deciding Vote." While the headline represents a badly needed attempt to restore credibility to the U.S. Supreme Court, it fails on the facts and it fails because the media cannot do what the Court, itself, has failed to do since its politicized decision in the case of Bush vs. Gore.

 

(*) All documentation may be found at http://www.bushwatch.net/gorebush.htm.

 

© copyright 2001. May be reprinted with attribution and link to www.bushwatch.com

 

Background: Gore Wins Popular Vote By Over Half Million

 

Associated Press, December 22, 2000

 

"Vice President Gore won the nation's popular vote in the presidential election by more than 500,000 votes, according to official totals made available Thursday to The Associated Press. An AP survey of all 50 states' final election numbers showed that Democrat Gore led President-elect Bush, the former GOP governor of Texas, by 539,947 votes. Final numbers show Gore with 50,996,116 votes and Bush with 50,456,169. Bush won the White House by capturing 271 electoral votes, one more than the Constitution requires. The popular vote total includes all absentee ballots that were counted in the weeks following the Nov. 7 election."

 

CONSORTIUM SAYS BUSH AND GORE WON FLORIDA VOTE

 

1. Gore Won The National Popular Vote By Over A Half Million (AP)

 

2. More Florida Voters Voted For Gore Than For Bush (SPT, CT)

 

3. The Supreme Court Selected Bush, 5-4. (Supreme Court)

 

4. The Supreme Court's Alternate Plan Was To Recount All Florida Votes. (Supreme Court)

 

5. A Recount Of All Florida Votes Would Have Gore Winning By Over 100 Votes. (NYT, WP)

 

As you read the Consortium membership comments (below the Parry summary story) on the Florida presidential election of 2000, please keep in mind that Bush was selected to be president by a U.S. Supreme Court vote of 5-4. If the Supreme Court had not decided to take such a vote, it indicated that neither the Bush solution to accept the State of Florida's count nor the Gore solution to recount four counties would be acceptable. Nor would the Florida Supreme Court's solution to recount 43,000 ballots be acceptable. Rather, the entire state of Florida would have to be recounted, the Supreme Court said. (Supreme Court summary ("equal protection") and decision here.) That scenario would have Gore winning by over 100 votes, based upon the recount by the Consortium. --Politex, 11/12/01

 

consortiumnews.com

 

Foreground: Gore's Victory

 

By Robert Parry

November 12, 2001

 

So Al Gore was the choice of Florida?s voters -- whether one counts hanging chads or dimpled chads. That was the core finding of the eight news organizations that conducted a review of disputed Florida ballots. By any chad measure, Gore won.

 

Gore won even if one doesn?t count the 15,000-25,000 votes that USA Today estimated Gore lost because of illegally designed ?butterfly ballots,? or the hundreds of predominantly African-American voters who were falsely identified by the state as felons and turned away from the polls.

 

Gore won even if there?s no adjustment for George W. Bush?s windfall of about 290 votes from improperly counted military absentee ballots where lax standards were applied to Republican counties and strict standards to Democratic ones, a violation of fairness reported earlier by the Washington Post and the New York Times.

 

Put differently, George W. Bush was not the choice of Florida?s voters anymore than he was the choice of the American people who cast a half million more ballots for Gore than Bush nationwide. [For more details on studies of the election, see Consortiumnews.com stories of May 12, June 2 and July 16.]

 

The Spin

 

Yet, possibly for reasons of ?patriotism? in this time of crisis, the news organizations that financed the Florida ballot study structured their stories on the ballot review to indicate that Bush was the legitimate winner, with headlines such as ?Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush? [Washington Post, Nov. 12, 2001].

 

Post media critic Howard Kurtz took the spin one cycle further with a story headlined, ?George W. Bush, Now More Than Ever,? in which Kurtz ridiculed as ?conspiracy theorists? those who thought Gore had won.

 

?The conspiracy theorists have been out in force, convinced that the media were covering up the Florida election results to protect President Bush,? Kurtz wrote. ?That gets put to rest today, with the finding by eight news organizations that Bush would have beaten Gore under both of the recount plans being considered at the time.?

 

Kurtz also mocked those who believed that winning an election fairly, based on the will of the voters, was important in a democracy. ?Now the question is: How many people still care about the election deadlock that last fall felt like the story of the century ? and now faintly echoes like some distant Civil War battle?? he wrote.

 

In other words, the elite media?s judgment is in: "Bush won, get over it." Only "Gore partisans" ? as both the Washington Post and the New York Times called critics of the official Florida election tallies ? would insist on looking at the fine print.

 

The Actual Findings

 

While that was the tone of coverage in these leading news outlets, it?s still a bit jarring to go outside the articles and read the actual results of the statewide review of 175,010 disputed ballots.

 

?Full Review Favors Gore,? the Washington Post said in a box on page 10, showing that under all standards applied to the ballots, Gore came out on top. The New York Times' graphic revealed the same outcome.

 

Earlier, less comprehensive ballot studies by the Miami Herald and USA Today had found that Bush and Gore split the four categories of disputed ballots depending on what standard was applied to assessing the ballots ? punched-through chads, hanging chads, etc. Bush won under two standards and Gore under two standards.

 

The new, fuller study found that Gore won regardless of which standard was applied and even when varying county judgments were factored in. Counting fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore won by 115 votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107 votes. With one corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won by 60 votes. Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171 votes.

 

This core finding of Gore?s Florida victory in the unofficial ballot recount might surprise many readers who skimmed only the headlines and the top paragraphs of the articles. The headlines and leads highlighted hypothetical, partial recounts that supposedly favored Bush.

 

Buried deeper in the stories or referenced in subheads was the fact that the new recount determined that Gore was the winner statewide, even ignoring the ?butterfly ballot? and other irregularities that cost him thousands of ballots.

 

The news organizations opted for the pro-Bush leads by focusing on two partial recounts that were proposed ? but not completed ? in the chaotic, often ugly environment of last November and December.

 

The new articles make much of Gore?s decision to seek recounts in only four counties and the Florida Supreme Court?s decision to examine only ?undervotes,? those rejected by voting machines for supposedly lacking a presidential vote. A recurring undercurrent in the articles is that Gore was to blame for his defeat, even if he may have actually won the election.

 

"Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to 'count all the votes,'" the New York Times wrote, with a clear suggestion that Gore was hypocritical as well as foolish.

 

The Washington Post recalled that Gore "did at one point call on Bush to join him in asking for a statewide recount" and accepting the results without further legal challenge, but that Bush rejected the proposal as "a public relations gesture."

 

The Bush Strategy

 

Instead of supporting a full and fair recount, Bush chose to cling to his official lead of 537 votes out of some 6 million cast, Bush counted on his brother Jeb?s state officials to ensure the Bush family?s return to national power.

 

To add some muscle to the legal maneuvering, the Bush campaign dispatched thugs to Florida to intimidate vote counters and jacked up the decibel level in the powerful conservative media, which accused Gore of trying to steal the election and labeled him "Sore Loserman."

 

With Bush rejecting a full recount and media pundits calling for Gore to concede, Gore opted for recounts in four southern Florida counties where irregularities seemed greatest. Those recounts were opposed by Bush?s supporters, both inside Gov. Jeb Bush?s administration and in the streets by Republican hooligans flown in from Washington. [For more details, see stories from Nov. 24, 2000 and Nov. 27, 2000]

 

Stymied on that recount front, Gore carried the fight to the state courts, where pro-Bush forces engaged in more delaying tactics, leaving the Florida Supreme Court only days to fashion a recount remedy.

 

Finally, on Dec. 8, facing an imminent deadline for submitting the presidential election returns, the state Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount of ?undervotes.? This tally would have excluded so-called ?overvotes? ? which were kicked out for supposedly indicating two choices for president.

 

Bush fought this court-ordered recount, too, sending his lawyers to the U.S. Supreme Court. There, five Republican justices stopped the recount on Dec. 9 and gave a sympathetic hearing to Bush?s claim that the varying ballot standards in Florida violated constitutional equal-protection requirements.

 

At 10 p.m. on Dec. 12, two hours before a deadline to submit voting results, the Republican-controlled U.S. Supreme Court instructed the state courts to devise a recount method that would apply equal standards, a move that would have included all ballots where the intent of the voter was clear. The hitch was that the U.S. Supreme Court gave the state only two hours to complete this assignment, effectively handing Florida?s 25 electoral votes and the White House to Republican George W. Bush.

 

A Third Hypothetical

 

The articles about the new recount tallies make much of the two hypothetical cases in which Bush supposedly would have prevailed: the limited recounts of the four southern Florida counties ? by 225 votes ? and the state Supreme Court?s order ? by 430 votes. Those hypothetical cases dominated the news stories, while Gore?s statewide-recount victory was played down.

 

Yet, the newspapers made little or nothing of the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court?s decision represented a third hypothetical. Assuming that a brief extension were granted to permit a full-and-fair Florida recount, the U.S. Supreme Court decision might well have resulted in the same result that the news organizations discovered: a Gore victory.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court?s proposed standards mirrored the standards applied in the new recount of the disputed ballots. The Post buries this important fact in the 22nd paragraph of its story.

 

?Ironically, it was Bush?s lawyers who argued that recounting only the undervotes violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. And the U.S. Supreme Court, in its Dec. 12 ruling that ended the dispute, also questioned whether the Florida court should have limited a statewide recount only to undervotes,? the Post wrote. ?Had the high court acted on that, and had there been enough time left for the Florida Supreme Court to require yet another statewide recount, Gore?s chances would have been dramatically improved.?

 

In other words, if the U.S. Supreme Court had given the state enough time to fashion a comprehensive remedy or if Bush had agreed to a full-and-fair recount earlier, the popular will of the American voters ? both nationally and in Florida ? might well have been respected. Al Gore might well have been inaugurated president of the United States.

 

Favored Outcome

 

But this outcome was not the favored hypothetical of the news organizations, which apparently wanted to avoid questions about their patriotism. If they had simply given the American people the unvarnished facts, the reality that the voters of Florida favored Al Gore might have bolstered the belief that Bush indeed did steal the White House. That, in turn, could have undermined his legitimacy during the current crisis over terrorism.

 

In its coverage of the latest recount numbers, the national news media also showed little regard for the fundamental principle of democracy: that leaders derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, not from legalistic tricks, physical intimidation and public-relations maneuvers.

 

It is that understanding that is most missing in the news accounts of the latest recount figures.

 

Presumably, the American people are supposed to accept that everything just turned out right ? the Bush dynasty was restored to power, the proper order was back in place. Anyone who begs to differ is a "conspiracy theorist" or a "Gore partisan."

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by paul108 (edited 11-13-2001).]

[Tarun]

Paulji: Great news: it's better this way.

According to PrabhupAd, we don't have to suffer for Bushwhacker's transgressions if we never voted him in in the 1st place.

He & those Supreme Court judges take on the full karmik reactions.

 

[Tarun]

Bushwind is using his Hurricane method.

He can solve neither domestic nor foreign problems.

Bushbreeze has no intention to.

Instead, like KaMsarAj, Bushbandhu agrees with friends:

"Have many disasters going on a la fois, to throw everyone offguard & in a frenzy.

This way we can steal everything, kitchen sink inclusief!"

He poses with Nelson Mandela to further confuse Afro-Amerikans.

BP Amoco Tony Pipeline Blair assuringly spurts us his 'unbiased' approval.

Rasputin/PutanA Putin's alliance turns last years' Chechniya freedom fighters into this years' Chechniya terrorists.

Neither chapatis, pancakes nor tortillas flipflop as often as Bushmix.

His entire Non-election & Presidency would congruently, equilaterally, equiangularly fit into the comedy flick category rivalling "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World!", if but for one unfortunate aspect:

It's really happening before our eyes. Our throats. Our wallets.

 

[paul108]

An election correction

 

Nov 15th 2001

From The Economist print edition

 

 

http://www.economist.com/World/na/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=865704

 

In the issues of December 16th 2000 to November 10th 2001, we may have given the impression that George Bush had been legally and duly elected president of the United States. We now understand that this may have been incorrect, and that the election result is still too close to call. The Economist apologises for any inconvenience.

 

[Tarun]

I do agree with Bushido regarding Cloning.

Whatever material scientists meddle with inevitably produces inferior quality.

Either they can't get it right or someone pays them NOT ti get it right.

Praying, Meditating, Chanting Divine Mantras before, during & after conception is the positive alternative.

[Tarun]

Bushing may be removed from office sooner than you think.

Lieberman & other Congressman plan to soon perform a thorough investigation of what exactly happened 11Sep2001.

If so, Bushmaster & his Chaineygang will be busy shredding more documents, bumping off informants, covering each others' butts, erasing more audio & videotapes than Nixon could ever dream of shaking a stick at.

They want to bring back the Old South.

They've secured Colon Power as chief slavemaster.

Rearend thrust. A new southerly Dixie breeze is blowing.

To bloody for sane men to embrace.

Texas is famous for 2 things: cow killing & oil drilling

Killing & Drilling

Sucking our 2nd Mother's Blood + Mother Earth's Blood

To add insult to injury:

They believe Jesus' Blood will save them.

All in all, a bloody mess.

Their Bloody Trinity.

This particular Republican interpretation is the most ideal example of adding insult to injury.

If they don't change their ways but quick, they're all headed headfirst into 5th Canto Chapter 26.

As you sew/sow, so do you reap, so change or weep, ya bloody creep.

 

[Tarun]

"LibertyWire" <Distribution@AmericanLibertyFoundation.org>

"Subscriber" <LibertyWire@mjx.AmericanLibertyFoundation.org>

The Bush Coup d'Etat

Thu, 20 Dec 2001 07:44:39 -0800

 

To respond to this message, please DO NOT hit "Reply"

because this address is not monitored. To send a reply,

please LibertyWire@AmericanLibertyFoundation.org

To make subscription changes, see bottom of this message.

 

 

L i b e r t y W i r e

 

|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|

 

Harry Browne's weekly Liberty & Peace commentary

appears today on www.WorldNetDaily.com . . .

 

 

The Bush Coup d'Etat

 

by Harry Browne

 

In 1932 Franklin Roosevelt was elected promising a 25% reduction in the

federal budget, an end to deficits, and the restoration of a sound dollar.

 

Within eight years the federal budget tripled, federal debt increased 155%,

and the gold standard was repudiated -- making the U.S. dollar a fiat

currency.

 

Roosevelt's New Deal transformed America from a unique country in which

everyone could live his life as he saw fit into a welfare state in which

most business was supervised from Washington.

 

No longer was America run by the people -- or even by Congress. Instead it

was now directed by bureaucrats operating in regulatory agencies like the

AAA, FCA, CCC, FCI, SMA, FSA, NLRB, PWA, WPA, FDIC, FSLIC, SEC, SSA, REA,

EHFA -- directing when we shall sow and when we shall reap.

 

Effecting a Revolution

 

Why would Americans give up their freedom for a system that had never worked

well in the Old World?

 

They did it because Roosevelt never attacked the American Way head-on.

Instead . . .

 

1. He praised the Constitution, but said it must be updated from "horse and

buggy" days.

 

2. He never discussed the liberties he was stealing -- talking instead about

government's power to do good.

 

3. Any objectors were challenged to prove that some other program could cure

the Depression perfectly overnight.

 

4. Those who protested the loss of freedom were dismissed as alarmists and

"economic royalists" who wanted to continue exploiting their neighbors.

 

The magic words were "recovery" and "emergency." They justified

everything -- even though the New Deal produced no recovery, and there were

far better ways to deal with the emergency.

 

The Mess of Pottage

 

The writer Garet Garrett called the New Deal "The People's Pottage." Esau

had traded his birthright for a mess of pottage. And now the American people

had traded _their_ birthright -- the freest nation the world had ever

known -- for a mess of pottage.

 

And what did that pottage consist of?

 

In 1940 the unemployment rate was still 15%, the Depression was still

severe, and Roosevelt was maneuvering America into war to distract attention

from the New Deal's failures.

 

THE BUSH REVOLUTION

 

In 2000 George Bush won the Presidency promising "limited government,"

reading the Constitution literally, and rejecting the concept of

"nation-building" -- the practice of imposing pro-American governments on

foreign nations.

 

But once in office he produced a federal budget limited by nothing. And now

he's making the Constitution an instrument of his own power -- even as he

imposes a new government on Afghanistan.

 

The Last of the Bill of Rights

 

The Roosevelt Coup d'Etat destroyed the 9th and 10th amendments -- the ones

limiting the government's functions.

 

The 1st and 2nd amendments remained in form -- although the Supreme Court

now decides when they can be overruled by the government's "compelling

interest."

 

Amendments 3-8 have survived, although considerably battered. But now the

Bush Coup d'Etat is aimed at erasing these last restrictions on government

power.

 

Bush wants to decide when people can have a jury trial, be safe from cruel

and unusual punishment, be secure against unreasonable searches and

seizures, and able to confront their accusers.

 

When the Bush New Deal is completed, the Bill of Rights will survive in name

only. And you will live and breathe only by the sufferance of the all-mighty

government. Your fate will be in the hands of people like George Bush,

Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Teddy Kennedy, and Strom Thurmond.

 

Of course, George Bush is doing this to save America.

 

But what is America if there's no individual liberty?

 

Effecting Revolution II

 

Like Roosevelt, George Bush isn't attacking the Constitution and the

American way head-on. Instead . . .

 

1. He claims to want to preserve the Constitution, but says we must put

security first.

 

2. He diverts attention from our lost liberties by talking about ridding the

world of evil-doers.

 

3. Objectors are challenged to provide another program that can destroy

terrorism perfectly.

 

4. Those protesting the lost liberties are dismissed as unpatriotic,

paranoid, or "America-haters" -- who are aiding the terrorists by "scaring

peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty."

 

The magic words are "security" and "emergency." They justify everything --

even though Bush is _increasing_ the world domination that made us

vulnerable to terrorism in the first place.

 

If George Bush were a Democrat, many conservatives would be fighting him to

the death. But too many conservatives have abandoned their principles and

begun deciding right and wrong on the basis of party labels.

 

More Pottage

 

We, too, are trading the last remnants of America for a mess of pottage.

 

The War on Terrorism has no more chance to succeed than the New Deal, the

War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, or the War on Illiteracy.

 

The first revolution for big government was effected by a man who railed

against big government and said he wanted to save capitalism. The second

revolution is being engineered by a man who claims to be for limited

government and the preservation of freedom.

 

Even as he seeks to destroy the last vestiges of a free America.

 

---

 

Harry Browne is Director of Public Policy for the

American Liberty Foundation. You can read more of

his articles at www.HarryBrowne.org, his books are

available at www.HBBooks.com, and you can participate

in his weekly radio talk show via the Internet every

Friday evening at 9:00 pm Eastern Time at

http://AmericanLibertyFoundation.org/radio.htm

 

 

|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|

 

 

L i b e r t y W i r e

is the official email list of the

American Liberty Foundation -- a non-profit

educational organization promoting the ideas of

individual liberty and personal responsibility.

 

VISIT the Foundation's web site at

http://www.AmericanLibertyFoundation.org

 

CONTRIBUTE to the Foundation at

http://www.AmericanLibertyFoundation.org/founder.htm

 

UNSUBSCRIBE from this list by sending an email to

Majordomo-LibertyWire@mjx.AmericanLibertyFoundation.org

with the words

LibertyWire

on the first line of the body of the message.

Please leave the rest of the message blank.

 

SUBSCRIBE to this list by sending an email to

Majordomo-LibertyWire@mjx.AmericanLibertyFoundation.org

with the words

LibertyWire

on the first line of the body of the message.

Please leave the rest of the message blank.

 

You are encouraged to forward this message to

friends and business associates, and to reproduce

any items herein as long as attribution is provided

for articles and the subscription instructions

above are included.

 

TO COMMUNICATE with us, please DO NOT

reply to this message; this address is not

monitored. Instead, please send your email to

LibertyWire@AmericanLibertyFoundation.org

[Tarun]

Bush Spent Four Times as Much as Gore on Florida Recount, Documents Show

Associated Press | Boston Globe - Saturday, 27 July, 2002

WASHINGTON (AP) The Bush campaign spent $13.8 million on lawyers, salaries, travel and hotels to win the Florida recount vote, roughly four more times than the Gore campaign spent, according to Internal Revenue Service documents released Friday.

 

The Gore campaign spent $3.2 million in its losing battle for Florida's 25 electoral votes, mostly from large gifts. Donors included Hollywood producer Stephen Bing and actress Jane Fonda.

 

In contrast, the Bush campaign contributions were almost all $5,000 or less, The Washington Post reported Saturday.

 

Public Citizen, an activist group that advocates enforcing election laws, said Bush's recount fund evaded a campaign-finance disclosure law for a year and a half. The campaign only filed the required forms on the last day of an IRS amnesty program for groups that don't comply, Public Citizen said.

 

Failure to meet the amnesty deadline could have resulted in fines of as much as $6.92 million, Public Citizen said.

 

Benjamin Ginsberg, a lawyer for the Bush recount, said they had no legal obligation to release the document. The only reason they made it public was to avoid controversy.

 

''We don't think we have a legal obligation to file this,'' he said, adding federal election law doesn't require recount funds to be reported.

 

Gore's recount committee disclosed to the IRS its receipts and expenditures more than a year ago.

In addition to paying for lawyers, phones and campaign staff salaries, the Bush campaign $13,000 to Enron Corp. and $2,400 to Halliburton Co. for use of their jets.

[Tarun]

Hello Everyone, Please read the article at the end of this link. It gives a good account of how the traitor, Franklin Roosevelt, arranged to have the United States enter World War II. It is similar to what George Bush is doing now.

Yours truly, Ed.

http://www.rense.com/general30/worse.htm

[Guest guest]

Something everyone should see - call your local PBS and tell them to air this!

 

=============================================================

 

PALAST INVESTIGATION OF FLORIDA VOTE THEFT TO AIR ON PBS, FEATURED AT HAMPTONS INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL

 

Friday Oct 18, 2002

 

Two films, Counting on Democracy and Unprecedented, premier this month In the face of the controversial decision by the PBS network to refuse to transmit the investigative report, the nation's top PBS stations will independently broadcast COUNTING ON DEMOCRACY.

 

Directed by Emmy-award winner Danny Schechter, the 57-minute documentary follows BBC television reporter Greg Palast as he discovers how Katherine Harris removed up to 57,000 legal voters from registries &#8211; most black &#8211; five months before the 2000 election.

 

While the public broadcast network chiefs refused to schedule this important report, WNET (New York), KCET (Los Angeles), KQED (San Francisco) and dozens more are insisting on showing the exposé before the mid-term elections.

 

See full schedule at:

 

http://www.GregPalast.com

 

The film will be featured this Sunday at the Hamptons International Film Festival.

[Tarun]

Tonight "Counting on Democracy" compiled by Danny Schecter will broadcast twice tonight:

1) 6pm at 35 W67St Manhattan, NYC +

2) after Charlie Rose at midnight EST Channel 13 PBS in NYC.

Schechter's documentary shows in detail how Bushel Brigade stole election in Florida Nov2000.

Documentary includes interviews with perpetrators clearly, proudly admitting how they duped entire counties.

In your face! Kaliyuga dancing on your tilak forehead. Watch closely. Your State is next.

warning: at 35 W67St watchout for Republican poison gas coming through vents &/or planted bombs.

Bushing will go to any length to quickly introduce One World Order, saving his face a la fois.

He just finished bumping off Wellstone. U r peanuts compared to Minnesota's late Senator.

[Tarun]

Meanwhile we r temporarily stuck with president select Bombastic Bushkin (stress on 'Bomb'), Random Tandem's select choice.

Indeed, Johnny Carson predicted his rise long ago.

I repeat, I agree with Bushala on 4-5 issues:

1) anti-abortion

2) school vouchers

3) help Churches, Temples that do welfare work

4) pre-natal care

After these, he & his more or less lost me.

His foreign policy & environmental protection lack is abominable, strictly 5th Canto Ch 26.