Note from Brad...[UPDATED AGAIN!]
Our DSL service is back! Catching up with much at this time!
As mentioned previously, YEI has now released a full statement on the Curtis charges. This statement follows up two short previous ones which we've already spoken to in some detail here.
We are currently working on a response to their newest charges, including hard documentary evidence contradicting several of their claims and we hope to have that reponse posted here this evening.
As always, however, we are doing our best to cross whichever i's and whatever t's possible in the research we are able to do concerning the matter. So that response may be released here tomorrow instead. We'll see.
For now, however, please see the article posted this morning on Mr. Hai Lin Nee (a/k/a Henry Lee) for a few details which already contradict a portion of YEI's statement. As mentioned, we will be posting hard evidence to back up some of those claims as soon as I am able to complete the promised response.
Thanks as always for your patience and support...and God Bless America.
As mentioned previously, YEI has now released a full statement on the Curtis charges. This statement follows up two short previous ones which we've already spoken to in some detail here.
We are currently working on a response to their newest charges, including hard documentary evidence contradicting several of their claims and we hope to have that reponse posted here this evening.
As always, however, we are doing our best to cross whichever i's and whatever t's possible in the research we are able to do concerning the matter. So that response may be released here tomorrow instead. We'll see.
For now, however, please see the article posted this morning on Mr. Hai Lin Nee (a/k/a Henry Lee) for a few details which already contradict a portion of YEI's statement. As mentioned, we will be posting hard evidence to back up some of those claims as soon as I am able to complete the promised response.
Thanks as always for your patience and support...and God Bless America.
8 Comments:
Everybody needs to chill out.
1) The election result ain't gonna be overturned.
2) Allegations of fraud may be proven false, and if we overemphasize them, their could be a backlash against the voting rights movement.
3) Voting rights movement needs to emphasize PREVENTING FUTURE FRAUD rather than PROVING past fraud. The former is a non-partisan issue while the latter is polarizing by nature.
4) In general, we need to slow down and think.
agitprops -
Without tipping my hand, I'll have a *full* response to the YEI statement either this evening or -- at latest -- tomorrow. It will answer your question.
To the rest of the discussion, keep fighting! But where you see dishonesty, untruths, hypocrisy and duplicity, speak up, raise hell, don't be trampled on, and don't - by any stretch of the imagination - assume that anyone but you is going to do something about it!
I'm sorry to disagree with our friend Tallahasse Joe on this point...The Dems tried to play nice and avoid "divisiness" after 2000, and look where it got them.
Stand up for truth, and worry about the effects of telling the truth later.
Sez me.
MikeyCan:
I completely agree with you when you say "it really doesn't matter if Curtis is telling the truth or not. The point is that WE CAN'T KNOW, because by the new systems we CAN'T DO A MANUAL RECOUNT. There is NO longer a paper trail when it comes to touch-screen voting! If widespread fraud has not happened with this system already, them it is only a matter time before it does. And we will never be able to prove when fraud has or hasn't happened!"
That is exactly my point - and that is exactly why I am saying that electoral reform advocates should NOT latch on to and associate themselves with allegations such as those Mr. Curtis has made.
If the allegations prove false or even merely unprovable, the advocates who have supported them will be discredited. But the point advocates like Bev Harris of Black Box Voting are making is a valid point EVEN IF NO FRAUD WHATSOEVER HAS TAKEN PLACE SO FAR. Like you said, MikeyCan, "it is only a matter of time."
Now let me be clear: where evidence is available to support a criminal investigation of voter fraud, the charges should be vigorously pursued. Certainly, in my opinion, the FBI should be interviewing Mr. Curtis and Mr. Feeney about Mr. Curtis allegations. But ultimately, it's just Mr. Curtis' word against Mr. Feeney's (as it seems to be), that is not enough to convict anyone! Activists are not going to change that fact.
All activists may be able to do is bring Mr. Curtis' claims into the public eye. That might be good for the electoral reform movement - BUT I SERIOUSLY DOUBT IT.
What I expect would happen if Mr. Curtis claims got mainstream coverage is that he would soon be (fairly or unfairly) "discredited" because of such side issues as the copyright lawsuits against him and the "disgruntled employee" label, etc.) Brad's careful attempts to refute the claims against Mr. Curtis will be of no help. At the end of the day, in the abscence of objective proof, a Congressman has more credibility than an obscure computer programmer with a checkered past. So Mr. Curtis would be labelled a liar and electoral reform advocates would be labelled "conspiracy theorists" (a nonsensical term, of course, but already being used).
Now if you are motivated by an an "objective" journalistic pursuit of truth,none of this will matter to you. You will delve as far as possible into the truth of Mr. Curtis' claims.
But if you are an ACTIVIST, you will accept that you only have limited time and unfortunately you may not have time to figure out whether or what fraud has occurred.
As an activist, you will also think about STRATEGY and realize that all these accusations against Republican officials are DIVISIVE and if we want electoral reform we are going to have to win over quite a few Republicans to our cause. AS LONG AS ELECTORAL REFORM IS SEEN AS A "SOUR GRAPES" ISSUE TOUTED BY "CONSPIRACY THEORISTS", IT IS DEAD IN THE WATER.
I suspect opponents of reform understand this, and the more devious of them may be inclined to spread DISINFORMATION regarding fraud allegations that will then be discredited later, thus potentially discrediting the reform movement itself.
The only way to be immune to this strategy, as well as the "sour grapes" accusation, is to stick the line "We're not saying fraud happened - we're saying it could. It could be done by low level officials and it could be done by Democrats OR Republicans. This is a bipartisan issue and we've got to protect democracy."
Of course, if you have AIRTIGHT evidence of fraud, by all means, publicize it. Anything less is highly suspect.
"Chill out" = get over it. So forget THAT nonsense!
We "got over" the 2000 theft and what did it get us? ANOTHER stolen election! (Not to mention an idiot war-monger who spends like a drunken sailor and an America in the toilet right now.)
The major media ran the Swift Boat vets nonsense 24/7--every program, every channel--with FAR less substance than the Curtis story. Why their silence? It's obvious to everyone here.
The ONLY course we have is to scream LOUD AND LONG! Accuse the GOP of everything we can find evidence of! And blast every silent news outlet for its COMPLICITY in this scheme!
Democracy is in jeopardy. The corporations (GOP and major media) are aligned against us. Half the Democrats are either too afraid or too indifferent to act. "Chilling out" will only make these crimes EASIER AND EASIER.
I'm not "chilling out," I'm buying AMMO.
To summarize my main points about electoral reform advocacy:
1) Electronic voting in its current form is untrustworthy. At minimum, we need open source code and a paper trail.
2)Accusations of fraud should be thorougly investigated and, where evidence permits, vigorously prosecuted, but the results of these investigations would not change the fact that electoral reform is needed.
3) Electoral reform advocates should distance themselves from any allegations of voter fraud AT LEAST until there is AIRTIGHT proof for the allegations.
4) Electoral reform advocates MUST emphasize the nonpartisan nature of this issue in every way possible.
5) Overturning the Bush victory should NOT be a goal of reformers. Having this as a goal just proves you are partisan and not serious about fair elections.
6) There has been absolutely no evidence presented (correct me if I'm wrong) that President Bush was personally involved in any electoral fraud. Therefore it is completely inappropriate to discuss impeaching him. Impeachment would require that the President himself committed "high crimes or misdemeanors" - not simply that such crimes, committed by others, led to his election.
7) If you want to be an ELECTORAL REFORM ADVOCATE, you should not talk about substantive policy issues, or candidate or party preferences, in the context of electoral issues. Doing that makes you look partisan and untrustworthy.
I realize now I should not have used the phrase "chill out" and that I invited the lambasting I have received.
However, I stand by my points, which I hope I have clarified in my last two comments above.
By "chill out" I do NOT mean giving up or backing down on electoral reform. I intend to devote myself to the electoral reform issue as much as possible until I become convinced that fair elections are taking place (which may be a while!) I intend to back away from substantive policy issues, because if we don't have democratic elections, there is no point in talking about policy anyway - it'll be decided by elites.
But please don't hang all your hopes on reversing the 2004 election. That seems unlikely. We've got to think long term. And I truly believe this is a NON-PARTISAN issue - so let's start talking about it that way.
I will have some Henry Need time cards posted with my response to YEI's statement on Wednesday. Plus more.
While I appreciate Tallahassee Joe's comments, I couldn't disagree with him in general any more.
Trust me, nobody is as concerned about, and will do more in the future regarding ELECTION REFORM.
But some of us are not willing to roll over and take one again as we did in 2000. That got us nowhere but where we are now.
He's right, in that it's not a partisan issue. But he's wrong if he thinks that "being nice" translates into bi-partisanship.
That much, at least, has been proven wrong over the last four years.
This is not 2000. And I strongly advocate folks making as much noise as they can about the injustices and irregularities that we have been documenting since November 3rd.
We've got another four years (or at least another two) to win the Election Reform argument. Now is the time for the Election 2004 argument.
I'm neither a Bush nor Kerry voter, but I ain't playing that sweet and safe game anymore, Joe. If you want to see change, instead of lip-service about change, I recommend you stop playing it as well.
Post a Comment
<< Home