“We don’t do [ Iraqi ] body counts.” — General Tommy Franks, US Central Command freeway blogger

IRAQ WAR CO$T (JavaScript Error) more details here u.s. dead the coffins iraqi casualties

Katherine "Hot Pants" Harris, Classy Republican Chick  * *  spotted in 2005 at a Florida bookstore in hot pants, high heels & stockings

king george borg queen barbara bush hillary vs giuliani why they do it the road to oil chertoff & katrina face of the enemy not in my name guantánamo & abu graib bush's bitch dinner satire karl rove piggie who's in charge? face of the dead born again dubya the evil twins nude emperor time warp again lynndie & rumsfie the ventriloquist the liberators old enemies condi & bushie swatting flies war ends lebanon forever war censorship annie fuehrer nietzsche's boy ashcroft cheney mummy dr. lovebomb rumsfeld bush's poodle turkey & the prez spider queen david duke

"Rumor is that President Bush's brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, may run for president. Rumor? According to Florida voting machines, he's already won." — Jay Leno "If Bush is nominated, the next step, of course, is rigging the voting machines." — David Letterman "If Bush loses, do you think he'll leave? Or do you think he'll just say, 'I don't read the papers'?" — Jon Stewart "Our Election 2004 Fiasco Preview begins where the fiasco began last time: Florida. While The Sunshine State's 2000 debacle gave all of America 36 days of breezy, lighthearted fun, there were negative aspects as well, and the state has been warned by God four times this hurricane season alone to never let it happen again." — Jon Stewart "For the first 2 nights, the Republicans played the role of mild-mannered Bruce Banner- courageous, compassionate. But last night, the green, monstrously muscled and angry face they tried to hard to conceal finally tore through their t-shirt of civility and announced to the world, you wouldn't like us when we're angry. Last night, the Republican faithful were angry. After four years of being in charge of the House, Senate, Supreme Court and Executive branch, they were not gonna take it anymore. Yeah! Down with the people who are already down!" — Jon Stewart "Ralph Nader has managed to get his name on the Florida ballot. He can't get his name on most ballots, but he managed to do it in Florida. Gee, I wonder who helped him there? — Jay Leno "The Disney company is blocking the distribution of Fahrenheit 9/11 because it criticizes President Bush. When asked if the block has anything to do with winning tax breaks from Florida Governor Jeb Bush, a Disney spokesman said, 'It's a small world after all.' " — Conan O'Brien "There was an embarrassing moment in the White House earlier today. They were searching for George Bush's military records and found some old Al Gore ballots." — David Letterman "Kerry is well on his way to reaching his magic number of 2,162, the total number of delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination. It's different for President Bush. His magic number is 5. That’s the number of Supreme Court judges needed to win." — Jay Leno "We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fiction of duct tape, or fiction of orange alerts, we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up. Thank you very much." — Michael Moore's Oscar speech

Jeb Bush Ignored Felon List Advice Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:17 AM ET TALLAHASSEE, Fl Florida Gov. Jeb Bush ignored advice to throw out a flawed felon voter list before it went out to county election offices despite warnings from state officials, according to a published report Saturday. In a May 4 e-mail obtained by the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Florida Department of Law Enforcement computer expert Jeff Long told his boss that a Department of State computer expert had told him "that yesterday they recommended to the Gov that they 'pull the plug'" on the voter database. The e-mail said state election officials "weren't comfortable with the felon matching program they've got," but added, "The Gov rejected their suggestion to pull the plug, so they're 'going live' with it this weekend." Long, who was responsible for giving elections officials his department's felon database, confirmed the contents of the e-mail Friday to the Herald-Tribune. He said he didn't remember the specifics, but that Paul Craft, the Department of State's top computer expert, had told him about the meeting with Bush. A software program matched data on felons with voter registration rolls to create the list of 48,000 names. Secretary of State Glenda Hood junked the database in July after acknowledging that 2,500 ex-felons on the list had had their voting rights restored. Most were Democrats, and many were black. Hispanics, who often vote Republican in Florida, were almost entirely absent from the list due to a technical error. Bush's spokeswoman, Jill Bratina, denied allegations that the governor ignored warnings about the list. "It's also irrelevant because the list isn't being used anymore," Bratina said Saturday. Bush told the Herald-Tribune that Craft didn't call him, and he denied that any meeting took place May 3 with Craft or other election officials. "Once it became clear after talking to the secretary of state that there were problems with the list (in July), that's when we decided to end it," Bush said. Craft hung up on a Herald-Tribune reporter seeking comment Friday. A message left for a Paul Craft in Tallahassee was not immediately returned Saturday. U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek (news, bio, voting record), the Florida chairman of Democratic Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign, said the report shows the extent Bush will go to ensure his brother's re-election. "Jeb Bush and the Bush campaign need to come clean about their involvement in this sad spectacle," Meek said. Florida is one of few states that does not automatically restore voting rights to convicted felons when they complete their sentences. Purging felons from voter rolls has been a hot-button issue since the 2000 presidential election, when many citizens discovered at the polls they weren't allowed to vote. Election officials have said that anyone who feels they have been inadvertently removed from the voter rolls on Nov. 2 will be allowed to use a provisional ballot that will be examined later to determine eligibility.

VOTER FRAUD NOTICE This Does NOT Apply to Republicans in Seminole County "A person who commits or attempts to commit any fraud in connection with voting, votes a fraudulent ballot, or votes more than once in an election can be convicted of a felony of the third degree and fined up to $5,000 and/or imprisoned for up to 5 years." Voter fraud can rob many Americans of their voice in government and greatly impact the results of elections across the nation. It is the active participation of citizens, like yourself, which aid in our mission to eliminate voter fraud. Voter fraud means intentional misrepresentation, trickery, deceit, or deception, arising out of or in connection with voter registration or voting, and the prescribed offenses set forth in Chapter 104, Florida Statutes. Should you observe or witness a potential case of voter fraud, we ask that you complete the Complaint Form regarding voter registration or voting and return it to the Division of Elections at the address at the top of the form so it may be further investigated see Rule 1S-2.025, Voter Fraud Complaints. The Division conducts preliminary investigations into any irregularities or fraud involving voter registration or voting and report its findings to the state attorney for the judicial circuit in which the alleged violation occurred for prosecution, where warranted. Therefore, in order for us to be able to conduct preliminary investigations, it is imperative that you provide us with the date, time, place and any specific circumstances that are witnessed. We need credible evidence (this does not mean suspicion). We also need a means of contacting you to obtain additional information. If you believe you have witnessed election fraud, please contact our Voter Fraud Hotline at  1-877-VOTERFRAUD.

California attorney Mark H. Levine explains it ALL to you fuzzy-thinking liberals who thought justice applied to the Hoi Polloi. NOTE #41.   1. I don't understand the recent Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore. I'm a lawyer. I've read it. It says Bush wins, even if Gore got the most votes.   2. But wait a second. The US Supreme Court has to give a reason, right? Right.   3. So Bush wins because hand-counts are illegal? Oh no. Six of the justices (two-thirds majority) believed hand-counts were legal and should be done.   4. Oh. So the justices did not believe that the hand-counts would find any legal ballots? Nope. The five conservative justices clearly held (and all nine justices agreed) "that punch card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way by the voter." So there are legal votes that should be counted but can't be.   5. Oh. Does this have something to do with states' rights? Don't conservatives love that? Generally yes. These five justices have held that the federal government has no business telling a sovereign state university it can't steal trade secrets just because such stealing is prohibited by law. Nor does the federal government have any business telling a state that it should bar guns in schools. Nor can the federal government use the equal protection clause to force states to take measures to stop violence against women.   6. Is there an exception in this case? Yes, the Gore exception. States have no rights to have their own state elections when it can result in Gore being elected President. This decision is limited to only this situation.   7. C'mon. The Supremes didn't really say that. You're exaggerating. Nope. They held "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, or the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."   8. What complexities? They don't say.   9. I'll bet I know the reason. I heard Jim Baker say this. The votes can't be counted because the Florida Supreme Court "changed the rules of the election after it was held." Right? Dead wrong. The US Supreme Court made clear that the Florida Supreme Court did not change the rules of the election. But the US Supreme Court found the failure of the Florida Court to change the rules was wrong.  10. Huh? The Legislature declared that the only legal standard for counting vote is "clear intent of the voter." The Florida Court was condemned for not adopting a clearer standard.  11. I thought the Florida Court was not allowed to change the Legislature's law after the election. Right.  12. So what's the problem? They didn't change the Legislature's law after the election. The US Supreme Court said the Florida Supreme Court should have "adopt[ed] adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote"  13. I thought only the Legislature could "adopt" new law. Right.  14. So if the Court had adopted new standards, I thought it would have been overturned. Right. You're catching on.  15. If the Court had adopted new standards, it would have been overturned for changing the rules. And when it didn't, it was overturned for not changing the rules. That means that no matter what the Florida Supreme Court did, legal votes could never be counted. Right. Next question.  16. Wait, wait. I thought the problem was "equal protection," that some counties counted votes differently from others. Isn't that a problem? It sure is. Across the nation, we vote in a hodgepodge of systems. Some, like the optical-scanners in rich, largely Republican-leaning counties record 99.7% of the votes. Some, like the punchcard systems in poor, largely Democratic-leaning counties record only 97% of the votes. So approximately 3% of Democratic votes are thrown in the trash can.  17. Aha! That's a severe equal-protection problem!!! No it's not. The Supreme Court wasn't worried about the 3% of Democratic ballots thrown in the trashcan in Florida. That "complexity" was not a problem.  18. Was it the butterfly ballots that violated Florida law and tricked more than 20,000 Democrats to vote for Buchanan or Gore and Buchanan? Nope. The Supreme Court has no problem believing that Buchanan got his highest, best support in a precinct consisting of a Jewish old age home with Holocaust survivors, who apparently have changed their mind about Hitler.  19. Yikes. So what was the serious equal protection problem? The problem was neither the butterfly ballot nor the 3% of Democrats (largely African-American) disenfranchised. The problem is that somewhat less than .005% of the ballots may have been determined under slightly different standards because judges sworn to uphold the law and doing their best to accomplish the legislative mandate of "clear intent of the voter" may have a slightly different opinion about the voter's intent.  20. Hmmm. OK, so if those votes are thrown out, you can still count the votes where everyone agrees the voter's intent is clear? Nope.  21. Why not? No time.  22. No time to count legal votes where everyone, even Republicans, agree the intent is clear? Why not? Because December 12 was yesterday.  23. Is December 12 a deadline for counting votes? No. January 6 is the deadline. In 1960, Hawaii's votes weren't counted until January 4.  24. So why is December 12 important? December 12 is a deadline by which Congress can't challenge the results.  25. What does the Congressional role have to do with the Supreme Court? Nothing.  26. But I thought --- The Florida Supreme Court had earlier held it would like to complete its work by December 12 to make things easier for Congress. The United States Supreme Court is trying to help the Florida Supreme Court out by forcing the Florida court to abide by a deadline that everyone agrees is not binding.  27. But I thought the Florida Court was going to just barely have the votes counted by December 12. They would have made it, but the five conservative justices stopped the recount last Saturday.  28. Why? Justice Scalia said some of the counts may not be legal.  29. So why not separate the votes into piles, indentations for Gore, hanging chads for Bush, votes that everyone agrees went to one candidate or the other so that we know exactly how Florida voted before determining who won? Then, if some ballots (say, indentations) have to be thrown out, the American people will know right away who won Florida. Great idea! But the US Supreme Court rejected it. They held that such counts would be likely to produce election results showing Gore won and Gore's winning would cause "public acceptance" and that would "cast a cloud" over Bush's "legitimacy" that would harm "democratic stability."  30. In other words, if America knows the truth that Gore won, they won't accept the US Supreme Court overturning Gore's victory? Yes, very good; you're catching on.  31. Is that a legal reason to stop recounts? or a political one? Let's just say that, in all of American history and all of American law, this reason has no basis in law. But that doesn't stop the five conservatives from creating new law out of thin air.  32. Aren't these conservative justices against judicial activism? Yes, when liberal judges are perceived to have done it.  33. Well, if the December 12 deadline is not binding, why not count the votes? The US Supreme Court, after admitting that the December 12 deadline is not binding, set December 12 as a binding deadline at 10 p.m. on December 12.  34. Didn't the US Supreme Court condemn the Florida Supreme Court for arbitrarily setting a deadline? Yes.  35. So who is punished for this behavior? Gore, of course.  36. Tell me this; are Florida's laws are unconstitutional? Yes  37. And the laws of 50 states that allow votes to be cast or counted differently are unconstitutional? Yes. And 33 states have the "clear intent of the voter" standard that the US Supreme Court found was illegal in Florida  38. Then why aren't the results of 33 states thrown out? Um. Because -- um -- ..the Supreme Court doesn't say --  39. But if Florida's certification includes counts expressly declared by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don't know who really won the election there, right? Right. Though a careful analysis by the Miami Herald shows Gore won Florida by about 20,000 votes (excluding the butterfly ballot errors)  40. So, what do we do, have a re-vote? Throw out the entire state? Count under a single uniform standard? No. We just don't count the votes that favor Gore.  41. That's completely bizarre! That sounds like rank political favoritism! But why? Did the justices have any financial interest in the case? Scalia's two sons are both lawyers working for Bush. Thomas' wife is collecting applications for people who want to work in the Bush administration.  42. Why didn't they recuse themselves? If either had recused himself, the vote would have been 4-4, and the Florida Supreme Court decision allowing recounts would have been affirmed.  43. I can't believe the justices acted in such a blatantly political way. No? Read the opinions for yourself: December   9: Stay stopping the recount December 12: Opinion  44. So what are the consequences of this? The guy who got the most votes in the US and in Florida and under our Constitution (Al Gore) will lose to America's second choice who won the all important 5-4 Supreme Court vote.  45. I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins. True, in a democracy. But America is not a democracy. In America in 2000, the guy with the most US Supreme Court votes wins.  46. So what will happen to the Supreme Court when Bush becomes President. He will appoint more justices in the mode of Thomas and Scalia to insure that the will of the people is less and less respected. Soon lawless justices may constitute 6-3 or even 7-2 on the court.  47. Is there any way to stop this? Yes. No federal judge can be confirmed without a vote in the Senate. It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. If only 41 of the 50 Democratic Senators stand up to Bush and his Supremes and say that they will not approve a single judge appointed by him until a President can be democratically elected in 2004, the judicial reign of terror can end and one day we can hope to return to the rule of law.  48. What do I do now? Write or call your senator, reminding him that Gore beat Bush by several hundred thousand votes (three times Kennedy's margin over Nixon) and that you believe that VOTERS rather than JUDGES should determine who wins an election by counting every vote. And to protect our judiciary from overturning the will of the people, you want them to confirm NO NEW JUDGES until 2004 when a president is finally chosen by most of the American people. Mark H. Levine        Attorney at Law        MarkLevineEsq@aol.com