|
|
(more...)
(less...)
Add to My Group
As Chris had informed me that there was supposed to be some diversity among the political affiliation of the Commission, I asked who was the Democrat. He said that he didn’t know, but if I could hold on for a minute or two, he would see if he could find out. So, I didn’t bother with even looking for any separation of powers provision in South Carolina’s Constitution. While I waited on hold, I went to the Constitution of South Carolina and clicked on Article II about suffrage. Right there in the first sentence of Article II, § 1, it states, "the ballots shall not be counted in secret." Jackpot!!! A Constitutional provision prohibiting counting votes in secret! No more need to refer to case law, evidence, or logic to argue against secret vote counting, at least in South Carolina. (The link follows the article.) I could hardly wait for Chris to get back on the line. When he did, he told me that no one knew which Commissioner was the Democrat. You know, he said, "it’s not like they walk around telling anyone that they are a Democrat." Is anyone else suspicious about that? The Public Information Officer for the Commission appointed by the Republican Governor doesn’t know who the lonely Democrat on the Commission is, the one required by law to be appointed to the Commission. No one knows, really? Like Ace Ventura would say, "really?" Any way, I didn’t press him on that since I could barely wait to ask him my next set of questions. First, I asked whether he minded if I put him on speaker phone and taped his answer to my next couple of questions. He said that he really didn’t feel comfortable doing that. I told him that I would really appreciate it since the story just got a lot more interesting while he had me on hold. Still, he didn’t want to be taped, so I’ll have to fill you in on the long pause. The oh, sh*t moment. I said, "Chris, how do the touch screen computers count the votes which are cast on them?" He said, "Well, they add them up as they’re cast." I said, "Can anyone see the votes being counted?" He said, "Well, no." I said, "Well, since Article II, § 1, of South Carolina’s Constitution states that the ballots shall not be counted in secret. What do you have to say about whether or not the use of touch screen computers to count the votes in South Carolina’s elections is Constitutional?" After a long pause, Chris said, "Well, I would have to say that it’s Constitutional because the votes are counted in public." I said, "Of course, you would have to say that, but you know that you already admitted that the votes are counted in secret. Would you like to change your position?" He said, "I really can’t." I said, "Would you like my phone number so that you can get back in touch with me in case anyone wants to change that position after you let everyone know that I am going to report that South Carolina’s use of touch screen computers in its elections violates its Constitution." He said, "Yes." I’m sure that I ruined Friday happy hour, and hopefully the weekend, for those in power there in South Carolina. Yes, for those of you who have never done it, it can be fun to rock the boat. With the boat sailing full speed ahead towards tyranny and away from democracy, it’s time to rock the boat, tip the boat over, or even to sink it unless you’re foolish enough to believe that you don’t want any power to control your government. So, where does the story go from here? I’ve let a number of people in the election integrity movement know that I found out that the way that South Carolina is conducting its elections is clearly not Constitutional. Of course, I heard back from many who are exited to hear my full story, but most are caught up right now focusing on the substantial amount of evidence strongly indicating that the official results of New Hampshire elections which were counted in secret by Diebold optical scan computers do not reflect the will of the voters. The New Hampshire evidence is very dramatic. The precincts with computer counts differ by highly improbable odds from the precincts with hand counts especially when you consider the obvious implication of the trends. The results differ from exit polls and from totals reported by the Boston Globe and the Associated Press, but later changed. Yet, the corporate media has only talked about how those polls were unreliable. Still, the corporate media tell you that the candidates who want to end the war and bring the troops home have little support when they know that the vast majority of the country also wants to end the war. Oh, that’s right, the corporate media doesn’t like to mention that, and they don’t like to cover the big anti-war rallies and marches. So, will any of the candidates speak out about how the use of computers to count or miscount the votes in secret violates South Carolina’s Constitution? I bet Congressman Dennis Kucinich will, but will the corporate media cover it? Senator Edwards has spoken out against touch screen voting machines before. But, will he do it again, and more importantly, will he use his trial lawyer skills to take legal action to stand up for the rights of the average American to have our votes counted accurately in public? Will he take legal action to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of South Carolina which he has sworn to uphold? If so, will the corporate media cover that? Congressman Ron Paul has been a consistent defender of Constitutional rights. Will he speak out about the blatant violation of South Carolina’s Constitution? Will he take a stand to protect our fundamental right to have our vote counted accurately? After all, without the right to have our vote counted accurately, what does the right to vote mean anyway? Hitler let the Germans vote. Stalin let the Soviets vote. Dictatorships usually do allow their subjects to vote. But of course, the counting is done in secret, and the powers that be always win the secret count. I bet Senator Gravel will speak out about this travesty of democracy, but the corporate media ignore him to the point that many Americans do not even know that he is running. Even though Senator Gravel has taken courageous stands to help end the Vietnam War and expose our government’s lies and abuses during that war to spread "democracy," the corporate media establishment doesn’t want to give him any more air time. Hey, maybe that’s why we’re at war spreading democracy and the rule of law now!?! We’re not using them in America anymore! Well, I hope that you stuck this out this far. Even though the future of our country looks pretty bleak, there is hope. The four candidates that I just named are likely to speak out, and Senator Obama is a lawyer, a law professor even. Senator Obama can certainly understand this, and I know that Oprah knows how to get things done. She has seen oppression and violations of fundamental rights. She has the power to talk about the need to restore democracy, or actually, to really implement it for the first time. Oprah can reach millions who would never hear about this without her. Will Senator Obama demand that the fundamental right to have our votes counted accurately in public is restored? Will Oprah? The corporate media have been ignoring this issue for years, but PBS and National Public Radio aren’t much better. In fact, NOW on PBS did a story about dirty politics in South Carolina just last week, and somehow, they failed to mention that its election system clearly violates the Constitution. The link is below. It’s an interesting story.
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people: Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers Mark A. Adams earned his BA in business administration with a major in finance and a minor in economics at the University of South Florida. He earned his law degree and his master of business administration at the University of Florida where he also worked as a teaching assistant in the Economics Department. Mark practiced law in Florida. In 2006, Mark represented Max Linn, the Reform Party candidate for Governor of Florida, in successful lawsuits brought against the media to require his inclusion in the Gubernatorial debates. Mark also represented John Russell, Clint Curtis, Frank Gonzalez, and others in contesting the official results of the 2006 elections in Florida state court and before the U.S. House of Representatives. Mark has been involved in the judicial reform movement since 2003, the media reform movement since 2004, and the election reform movement since 2006. Before those years, he believed that judges followed the law, that our media told us the truth, and that our votes were counted. Beliefs that most of us once held and that many still hold on to. Unfortunately, Mark, like many of us, learned that these beliefs were no longer true. However, Mark believes that we can counteract the forces which have destroyed these institutions if we face reality and take action before it is too late. Mark asks that you please remember that the American dream will die and our children will suffer if the people do not know what their government leaders are doing, if the people are not able to vote ineffective or corrupt leaders out of office, or if judges can ignore the law and the facts with no repercussions!
Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008 |
|
