2004 Vote Fraud Facts Surface

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,245
Reaction score
772
Location
Land of the Free
[size=+2]2004 VOTE FRAUD FACTS SURFACE[/size]
Reporter Who Told Story of 2004 Vote Thievery Hushed by Mainstream Media Mogul

By Greg Szymanski
Some people say Chicago Tribune columnist Robert Koehler works inside the belly of the beast, reporting for a corporate medium that is hungry for money but short on truth telling. Able to spit out a few morsels of truth every now and again, Koehler describes his unique position a little differently, suggesting it’s more like floating helplessly on top of a gigantic whale’s back instead of rumbling around inside its belly.

Wherever he sits, one of his recent columns, indicating that the 2004 presidential election was stolen, caused the ugly beast to let out a fierce roar, leading to a heated controversy inside the Tribune newsroom.

“It was a definite body blow,” said Koehler this week from his suburban home in Chicago.

To fully understand what Koehler means by a “body blow” and the ensuing controversy surrounding his April 14 column entitled “The silent scream of numbers: The 2004 election was stolen,” it’s important to understand how Koehler is positioned in respect to the Tribune, the employer who cuts his paycheck.

Koehler wears two hats. First, he’s one of the editors for The Chicago Tribune web site, meaning he manages and distributes the work of other columnists under contract by the Tribune, sending their stories to newspapers across the country who pay the Tribune parent company for this service.

Next, Koehler has developed his own column, separate and apart from his editing duties. Today, he’s published in 12 different newspapers, including The Chicago Tribune. Each newspaper, however, is not obligated to run his stories; the decision of what to print is based on content.

“Only a few papers decided to run my stolen election piece, and the Tribune wasn’t one of them,” said Koehler about his story that didn’t get much action in the mainstream papers but spread like a wildfire on the Internet.

“I want to point out, however, the politics of the Tribune are different than mine. But that’s OK. They are, of course, free to run whatever they’d like, and I respect that.”

But what Koehler didn’t like was the way the Tribune bosses responded to his column even though it never appeared in their paper.

“Basically, they wrote a rebuttal column criticizing my point of view regarding something that never ran in their newspaper in the first place,” added Koehler, saying this struck him as a bit strange, to say the least.

“Frankly, it made me a little angry, and I wanted an explanation.”

The rebuttal column, which treated Koehler like “Peck’s Bad Boy” gone mad with conspiracy theories, ran in the Tribune shortly after the controversial story appeared to be gaining momentum in cyberspace, a place where independent thought still roams free without corporate control and censorship.

After the Tribune’s response appeared, Koehler and his bosses engaged in an inner-office squabble, leading to Koehler’s decision to write a rebuttal to the rebuttal, a decision Koehler later discarded after being convinced it was better to leave personal inter-office fights out of the newspapers.

“I really wanted to write a rebuttal, but later reconsidered sending it over the wires since I thought our office disputes may be leading the reader away from the real issue of potential election fraud,” said Koehler.

To get some measure of intellectual satisfaction, Koehler decided to write a common letter to the editor, expressing his displeasure over his own newspaper’s reaction, which the Tribune printed without censorship.

After the dust settled and the parties made their peace, Koehler said he learned a valuable lesson about the mainstream media’s obsession with controlling free speech by silencing diverse and controversial opinions.

“I understand it’s the Tribune’s call, but basically they made my story sound like a total conspiracy [theory],” said Koehler, who has vowed to keep following the election fraud issue as well as other stories other mainstream journalists may not touch.

So what did Koehler write that was considered so controversial by the Establishment press?

“Was the election of 2004 stolen?” asked Koehler in his column. “Thus is the question framed by those who don’t want to know the answer. Anyone who says yes is immediately a conspiracy nut, and the listener’s eyeballs roll. So let’s not ask that question.”

Listen to the opening paragraphs of Koehler’s controversial column as a shocking reminder of the task ahead: As they slowly hack democracy to death, we’re as alone—we citizens—as we’ve ever been, protected only by the dust-covered clichés of the nation’s founding: “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” It’s time to blow off the dust and start paying the price.

The media are not on our side. The politicians are not on our side. It’s just us, connecting the dots, fitting the fragments together, crunching the numbers, wanting to know why there were so many irregularities in the last election. . . . This is not about partisan politics. It’s more like: “Oh no, this can’t be true.”

Instead of falling into the “conspiracy nut” classification by making blanket accusations, Koehler then provided facts and details, posing serious questions about voter disfranchisement, electronic voter machine irregularity and ongoing disputes about exit polls not matching the election’s final results. Questions like:

Let’s simply ask why the lines were so long and the voting machines so few in Columbus and Cleveland and inner-city and college precincts across the country, especially in the swing states, causing an estimated one-third of the voters in these precincts to drop out of line without casting a ballot.

This, mind you, is just for starters. We might also ask why so many Ph.D.-level mathematicians and computer programmers and other numbers-savvy scientists are saying that the numbers don’t make sense. . . . Indeed, the movement to investigate the 2004 election is led by such people, because the numbers are screaming at them that something is wrong.

And we might, no, we must, ask—with more seriousness than the [mainstream] media have asked— about those exit polls, which in years past were extraordinarily accurate but last November went haywire, predicting Kerry [winning] by roughly the margin by which he ultimately lost to Bush. This swing is out of the realm of random chance, forcing chagrined pollsters to hypothesize a “shy Republican” factor as the explanation; and the media have bought this evidence- free absurdity because it spares them the need to think about the F-word: fraud.




Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
 
Thank you, Bob. As the article says, those who disagree with the premise, seem to immediately brand anyone asking the question a 'conspiracy theorist' (aka kook).

I am, and forever will remain convinced that no Supreme Court Justices resigned in the First Bush term because they were, collectively, embarrased over their decision to appoint President Bush to the presidency. Now that it (appears) that Bush was elected by a majority of the citizens (a supposition about the preceeding article expresses doubt), it is safe for the Justices to step down.

As great as Justice O'Connor's service on the bench has been (mentioning this justice because of her announced retirement), I think that in 40 years, the Renhquist Court will be remembered for that one mis-carriage of justice. The Supreme Court had no standing in Gore v Bush, and should not have heard the case; starie decisis.
 
michaeledward said:
Thank you, Bob. As the article says, those who disagree with the premise, seem to immediately brand anyone asking the question a 'conspiracy theorist' (aka kook).

I am, and forever will remain convinced that no Supreme Court Justices resigned in the First Bush term because they were, collectively, embarrased over their decision to appoint President Bush to the presidency. Now that it (appears) that Bush was elected by a majority of the citizens (a supposition about the preceeding article expresses doubt), it is safe for the Justices to step down.

As great as Justice O'Connor's service on the bench has been (mentioning this justice because of her announced retirement), I think that in 40 years, the Renhquist Court will be remembered for that one mis-carriage of justice. The Supreme Court had no standing in Gore v Bush, and should not have heard the case; starie decisis.
If the aluminum foil fits....

You might want to ask yourselves this, folks. Is there any level of proof that can possibly exist to prove that a vast right wing conspiracy did not exist?

If not, then there really isn't anything to discuss. It falls under the same category as the belief in god and space aliens visiting earth. Reality is irrelavent to those who dogmatically cling to these views.

The "proof" and "evidence" presented in many of these articles purporting to "prove" that the 2004 election was "stolen" are usually big on opinion, supposition, hyperbole and distortion and very small on any actually evidence. If a lie gets circulated enough times on the internet, it apparently becomes it's own proof.

Note how much of the article is spent whinning about why the author isn't being believed and how unfair he thinks it is. This would be a prime opportunity for him to list, in detail, his evidence. Instead, he keeps the evidence until the very end and we find out that it is.......more distortion and supposition.

The best argument is "Well, it just seems fishy....the numbers don't add up" no coherent explaination of how the numbers add up, though i'm sure that if pressed, someone will throw out the most wild, convoluted and ultimately dense numerical "support" of absolutely nothing in hopes that it will appear to be a mountain of evidence. Much like the rest of the "evidence". The strategy is to assemble as much "evidence", which either a distortion of the truth or an outright lie, and throw it all together so that it appears to be an overwhelming unassailable amount of evidence. Funny thing is, none of it is what it is represented as when closely examined. In the light of detail the entire house of cards comes tumbling down.

However, not deterred, and secure in the knowledge that it would take weeks to pour through the mountain of garbage purported as evidence, the conspiracy mongers sally forth.

It's nothing really more than a hodge-podge of lies, rumors, and distortions of reality. It's all very interesting, though.

However, I will humor anyone who wishes to "prove" that Bush "Stole" the election. All you have to do is, in a very concise way, list the evidence that Bush "stole" election devoid of a large amount of commentary. Just the facts.
 
Take this little nugget:

MIAMI, FL — With the knowledge that the minority vote will be crucial in the upcoming presidential election, Republican Party officials are urging blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities to make their presence felt at the polls on Wednesday, Nov. 3.

"Minority voters should make their unique voices heard, especially the African-American voting bloc, which is always a major factor in every election," said Florida Republican Party voter-drive organizer Mark Monreal, as he handed out flyers at a community center in the mostly black Miami neighborhood of South Farms. "That's why we put up hundreds of brightly colored banners featuring Martin Luther King Jr. and the 'Vote November 3' reminder. We needed to make sure they know when we want them at polling places."

"You can't walk through a black neighborhood here in Miami without seeing our 'Don't Forget Big Wednesday!' message up on a billboard, tacked to a phone booth, or taped to a bus shelter," Monreal added. "The Republican Party has spared no expense in this endeavor."


Interesting, no, and thrown around as proof positive of voter disenfanchisement. The ironic part is...it was originally a spoof piece by those masters of fake news, the Onion. It has since circulated the internet as "Real news".

Evidence of fraud does exist...take this for example:





After nine months of intense voter-registration efforts focused on Franklin County, the number of people signed up to cast ballots in the Nov. 2 election has surpassed U.S. Census estimates of those eligible.





There are about 815,000 Franklin County residents older than 18, according to the most recent census estimates, for 2003. As of yesterday, Franklin County Board of Elections officials counted more than 817,000 registered voters, and forms are still coming in at the rate of 8,000 per day as Monday’s registration deadline approaches.

Although voter-registration numbers in some Ohio counties have reached 90 percent or more of population estimates, surpassing the number is highly unusual.

One county official in Ohio called the Franklin County figures "bizarre."

One state official called them troubling.





Columbus Dispatch





Or this describing trading votes for crack cocaine:

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041019/NEWS09/410190343

or this

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/1004/21voting.html

or this

http://www.10tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2458796

or this

http://www.cincinnati.com/text/local/2004/10/20/loc_fraud20.html

or this

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2005/jun/29/062903725.html


The list goes on and on. Note that all those cites listed are legitimate news sources, not crack wacko political hack websites, and that they discuss verified acts, many of them criminal, where suspects are named and charged with specific criminal offenses involving widespread voter fraud.

I have chosen not to include blogs as a source, as I feel that many of them are unreliable sources of information. I did find this one interesting

http://wrenncom.com/CommentaryArchives/2005/20y05m03d05-01.asp

So, I guess I was premature early in dismissing the charge of voter fraud. Apparently there was a wide-spread effort to steal the 2004 election...it however failed. Not that Democratic voter fraud is anything new. It is widely believed and supported that it was responsible for the election of John F. Kennedy in 1960.

In all seriousness, however, voter fraud seems to have occurred on both sides by unscrupulous supporters of both parties. Perhaps, just perhaps, it isn't an indication of vast right and left wing conspiracies, but the work of a minority of criminals on both sides who will do anything to get their side elected.
 
Back
Top