Hmm, you're gonna hate this message:
First of all, a recount will NOT result in an examination of the computer logs, etc. What is needed is a court order to confiscate/examine the machines and paper ballots, based on the discrepancy between the paper and machine ballot counts. Bev Harris knows this fact very well.
Kucinich? Contacting Kucinich? He has one of the most unorganized campaigns ever - I should know. I've known Dennis a long time, working for him -I have his cell number, but why would I call him? To tell him to stop the recount? He's not going to sign up for a recount OR pay for litigation to get a court order.
If you want to be productive, then raise money to hire attorneys to file for a court order to examine the machines. That's the ONLY WAY you will even APPROACH getting to the bottom of this. Interesting to note that Bev hasn't mentioned this fact she is oh so familiar with. Kucinich isn't going to deplete his last few campaign dollars on this good cause - I can guarantee you that!
Dennis tried to get a recount for free, but he failed. It costs $2,000 to file for a recount, but you also have to commit to paying for the ENTIRE COST of the recount AFTER the recount is finished. Do you think one of these candidates is going to sign up for THAT financial obligation/burden? It's NOT going to happen.
Things are FAR MORE FUCKED UP than you realize.
The bottom line is, until a court order is issued ordering an independent examination of these machines, you can fughetaboutit!
Hillary's Tears of Sadness
Never before has so much been said about so little. The political pontificators ponitificated endlessly about Hillary's tears; every theory was examined. Some said her tears were this, some said her tears were that. Some said her tears were responsible for her win (sic) in New Hampshire, claiming her tears moved women to vote for her - women who were NOT planning on voting for her. Some said her tears had nothing to do with her win, that her experience was the deciding factor in her New Hampshire win (sic). Since N.H., TV pundits have produced and argued every conceivable reason why Hillary is the "Comeback Kid." Most people cite the "sympathy factor" as the central excuse for Hillary's win (sic).
Every angle has been explored but the truth: Hillary's tears did NOT have a positive effect on the outcome; in fact, it had a NEGATIVE effect on her campaign; the truth is, Hillary LOST New Hampshire, as evidenced by either expert or lay review of the N.H. election stats. You don't have to be a statistician to realize that since Hillary won most of the optical scan machines, but LOST most all the paper ballots, while Obama WON most all the paper ballots but LOST virtually all the optical scan machines, that Hillary lost this primary election. I'll say it again: Hillary L-O-S-T the New Hampshire primary!
Proof can be found in a review of the paper v. machines counts. More information can be seen here. Further, the physical proof is in them thar machines. As we speak, NO CANDIDATE is seeking a court order to confiscate and examine a representative sample of those Diebold optical scanners. As we speak, Granny Warriors are raising money to fund a recount. Any U.S. Presidential candidate can request a statewide recount if they pay the $2000 recount fee and agree to pay all future costs of the final recount. There are 237 precincts in New Hampshire; to recount ALL precincts would cost at least a half a million dollars!. IF those machines are ever independently examined, the Holy Grail of election theft software, the 1.92w firmware will be revealed - exposed for all to see. This is NOT the first time this has happened in New Hampshire: in 2004, virtually the same thing happened along with the usual suspects: See, http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111804Y.shtml In 2004, Nader filed for a recount in N.H. However, a recount won't address the issue of whether votes were improperly cast. There are many reports of voters selecting Obama but registering a vote for Hillary. Sound familiar? Some candidate needs to file for a court order to examine those Diebold machines. Dr. Ron Paul isn't filing for a recount or an examination of the machines. Ron Paul wants to "move forward." I wonder if he will want to "move forward" after the next Selection Fraud South Carolina?
In hindsight, Hillary's tears weren't tears of sincerity, but tears of sadness; the sadness of losing in a big way. When Hillary "teared up," she really BELIEVED she was going to lose - a marked difference from when Katie Couric asked Hillary if she considered the possibility - THE POSSIBILITY - that she may lose, Hillary curtly replied, "No, I have not, and when I become President........." viewers and Couric were flabberghasted. Hillary remained erect.
Hillary remains the establishment candidate.
Remember, if it sounds like a duck, quacks lie a duck and looks like a duck, then it's probably a Diebold Accuvote optical scanner. Diebold ATM machines count your money, but the Diebold voting machines count your vote better - NOT!
Noam Chomski said it best:
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.