Replies

The vote count doesn’t tell us anything, unless it is verified by the actual signatures on the voting lists. We really have no way of knowing whether the votes tallied even vaguely represents the number of people who actually signed the list. We can’t know that until we count the number of people who actually signed the lists - looking for potentially faked signatures as well.

If the number of signatures matches the number of votes we still don’t know if the votes were changed, which can be easily done through the tabulation software. The only way we know whether it was R’s or D’s who signed the lists is through the election observers, and R observers were kicked out in critical states. That wasn’t an accidental thing, and in at least one case it was done in defiance of an order from a judge. You don’t commit the crime of contempt of court unless you’ve got a really important reason to do so...

And then even if we know how many R’s signed the voter list, the only measure of what faction within the R party showed up is the exit polling, which was only reported to the public by the media after they had a closed-door pow-wow. A democratic spokeswoman told people to ignore the first exit polling; well, the only people who would have seen that were the media, so the admonition to “stay calm” was to the media - who were being told not to panic because the “real scoop” (wink) would be in the votes, which would all be sunshine and roses. Rush reported that somebody had told him the exit pollers were instructed (by whom?) not to interview any elderly whites. And who did the pollers say showed up in droves? Abortion-driven women, Hispanics, and Blacks - most of whom said the top issue was Hurricane Sandy. What Rush read (and refuted) from the exit polling statements read like a missive from Axelrod. And that’s all we have.

The fact that Valerie Jarrett was confidently telling her people that they were going to win and then it would be payback time, even when the polls were saying otherwise, suggests foreknowledge of the final vote tally. Much like Manuel Zelaya foreknew the results (which were found in his briefcase) for an election that never happened. Methinks Jarrett or her surrogates may had a little visit with Nate Silver and gave him a peek at the numbers too.

So the truth of the matter is that we will never have certainty. We don’t know who programs the tabulation software and have no log of activity done to the program - much less a tamper-proof log of activity. Our observers were thrown out. And the exit polling is a work of the same media that let Obama get away with telling the world he called Benghazi a terrorist attack on Sept 12th, when they asked him on Sept 12th why he didn’t call it a terrorist attack and he clearly said we couldn’t know yet. So we’re being told to trust an unaccountable software system set up somebody we don’t know, only democrat observers, the elections officials who illegally threw out republican observers, and an already-proven lying, treasonous media.

Like I said, we will never have certainty, and that’s exactly the kind of unaccountable system that absolutely corrupts. Until the elections officials who violated the public trust are sitting soundly in jail for a good long time, until we have software which automatically tracks and logs transactions in a non-manipulable way and that log is made public, and until media people are sitting in jail or hanged for treason we will have no reason to trust any election results.

I don’t like the UN for a lot of reasons. But if our own system to secure the integrity of elections is even worse than the UN (which immediately questioned how any election results could be trusted when no voters are required to provide identification!), then that’s a sad, sad statement of US apathy and corruption. Americans have already given up on America.