ACTION! Thank Senators who voted against Gonzales--very important!

[Peace Patriot]

As the Senate Democrats assess their effort against Bush's pro-torture Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, this weekend, it's VERY IMPORTANT that they hear from us in support of their "NO!" vote and in praise of the many superb speeches given against this horrible nomination.

Here are the Senators who spoke against Gonzales:

Leahy (spoke several times, floor leader)
Feinstein (surprise vote no, good speech)
Schumer (in agony, likes Gonz the man, but strong speech against)
Mikulski (great speech)
Kennedy (magnificent speech! --in fact, two magnificent speeches!)
Dayton (good speech, but not the barn-burner he did on C. Rice)
Durbin
Stabenow
Jack Reed (thorough legal indictment of Gonz)
Byrd (magnificent speech!)
Dodd (great speech-father was lawyer at Nuremberg)
Obama
Cantwell (raised Enron fraud/Gonzales their attorney)
Bingaman (discussed innocence of most in Guantanamo Bay)
Tim Johnson (son in the Armed Forces)
Levin (good speech)
Harry Reid (minority leader)

(Note: This list may not be complete. Biden and Kohl may have spoken, too.)

6 Dems voted YES on Gonzales--Landrieu, Salazar, Pryor, Bill Nelson (Fla.), Joseph Lieberman, and Ben Nelson (NE)--and 3 didn't bother to vote (Baucus, Inouye, Conrad). These Dem Senators prevented the others from doing a filibuster, by denying the good Dems the 40 votes they needed to prevent shutdown of debate. (Vote was 60 to 36.) They should be royally roasted for this terrible act!

All other Dems and Jeffords (Ind.) voted NO. All should be commended for their courageous and righteous vote. Those who spoke take priority for a letter of praise.

GO HERE for a complete list of Senate contact info.:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x302077

The most complete Dem Senate contact info (with state offices) is mid-thread. A list of Repub. contact info in DC can be found toward the bottom of the thread. Orrin Hatch was particularly repulsive on this issue--he accused the DEMOCRATS of being against Gonzales because he is HISPANIC!

-------

GO HERE for detailed reports on the three days of debate Feb. 1, 2 and 3. This is Day #3--it has links to Days #1 and #2:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=315282

-------

In my letters to the Democrats, I am stressing Bush's low approval ratings, and the connection between his extremist appointments and policies, and the fact that he was not elected. I'm encouraging the Democrats to understand that they represent the MAJORITY, and educating them on election fraud. Here's my letter to Senator Kennedy:

February 6, 2005

Senator Ted Kennedy - via fax to: 202-224-2417 (2 pages)

Dear Senator Kennedy:

Thank you for your courageous vote against Alberto Gonzales and for your magnificent speeches in the Senate on this matter. Clearly, you were acting for the majority of Americans, 63% of whom disapprove of torture under any circumstances, 57% of whom disapprove of Bush's war on Iraq, and whose approval rating of Bush has sunk as low as 43% (Rasmussen).

And I urge you to consider the question: How can Bush have been re-elected, when the majority of Americans disagree with his extremist policies?

We at the democraticunderground.com, 2004 Election Results and Discussion Forum, believe that the answer is that George Bush was not elected on November 2, 2004. There is an amazing amount of evidence that supports this view Understanding this information is vital to finding the appropriate remedies, and also vital to Democratic Party behavior in the face of the Bush regime's arrogance. Being a "minority" is one thing, but representing a disenfranchised MAJORITY is quite another.

I urge you to read Dr. Steven Freeman's second report on the 2004 election, which was circulated in draft form on the internet, and is available to legislators upon request at

http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/epdiscrep.htm

Dr. Steven Freeman provides an astute analysis of the predictable vote for John Kerry, using the base vote going in (who voted in 2000), the big switch from Nader to Kerry in 2004, and new voter registration, which favored Democrats by 57% to 41%. Adding these three groups of voters together, Dr. Freeman finds a discrepancy of over 4 million votes (and possibly as high as 8 million) that Kerry should have gotten and didn't, in the official results.

In yet another study, on January 29, 2005, nine Ph.D.'s and other experts from leading universities issued a report that calls the 2004 election result into serious question. They find that Kerry won the exit polls (by a 3% margin). They find the odds against exit poll error--and thus, the odds against the Bush win --to be 1 in 10 million. They find a large, unexplained skew toward Bush at the precinct level in electronic voting vs. paper ballot (a skew that has been confirmed by other reports--see the U.C. Berkeley/Florida, and democraticunderground.com/North Carolina reports, below).

This report also finds the explanation by Edison/Mitofsky (the exit pollsters) for why Kerry won the exit polls--that Republicans were shy of the pollsters--to be without foundation. In fact, the data points to the opposite conclusion--that the exit polls actually favored Bush--which makes the unexplained discrepancy between the exit polls and the official results even larger. The report calls for a full investigation of the 2004 election--the latest in a growing list of expert reports that do so. See:

http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/USCountVotes_Re_Mitofsky-Edison.pdf

These reports come after many other investigations (see below), all of which point to the same thing: Stolen Election II. The "means, motive and opportunity" were there--in secret, proprietary source code running the electronic vote tabulation, controlled by major Bush/Cheney supporters; in the extreme insecurity and hackability of these machines; and in the lack of a paper trail and other transparency measures—all by deliberate design.


And I want to point out something that most people don't know—which I learned from these reports: The Exit Poll data showing a Kerry win on everybody's TV screens on election night was changed, as the night went on—it was "adjusted" to fit the "official results" that were coming in from central electronic vote tabulators. Americans were denied the information that Kerry won the Exit Polls—unlike in the Ukraine, where voters could see the conflicting numbers—the Exit Polls vs. the "official results"—and knew something was wrong. This Exit Poll "adjustment" in our election contributed to the illusion of a Bush win, and prevented an outcry by voters.

But that majority—which voted for Kerry, and voted with particular intent to oust the Bush regime—still exists, and still believes in our progressive country and its founding principles—the rule of laws not men, consent of the governed, a balance of power, and equality and justice.

Thousands of activists around the country observed the debates and votes on Condoleeza Rice and Alberto Gonzales, and your heroic stance on those nominations. We stand ready to assist any politician who courageously opposes the Bush regime, and who is willing to investigate the 2004 election and support election reform. We urge you to study these reports on the 2004 election:

Exit poll analysis - astronomical odds against Bush win:
Dr. Steven Freeman: http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/epdiscrep.htm
Dr. Ron Baiman: http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/997
Dr. Webb Mealy: http://www.selftest.net/redshift.htm
Jonathan Simon: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00142.htm
(9 Ph.D's from leading universities call for investigation:)
http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/USCountVotes_Re_Mitofsky-Edison.pdf

(Florida: 130,000 to 230,000 phantom votes for Bush--paper vs. electronic voting:)
Dr. Michael Haut & UC Berkeley stats team: http://ucdata.berkeley.edu

Johns Hopkins report on insecurity of electronic voting (general): http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00196.htm#5
Easy demo of the how insecure voting machines are:
http://www.chuckherrin.com/hackthevote.htm

Ohio vote suppression: http://www.bpac.info
Widespread machine fraud and dirty tricks in over 20 states: http://www.flcv.com/ussumall.html

Democratic Underground (ignatzmouse):
(North Carolina: absentee ballot vs. electronic, inexplicable 6% edge to Bush in electronic:)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x45003

Democratic Underground (TruthIsAll): "To believe Bush won, you have to believe…"
(Parts 1, 2 and 3:) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1316010
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1358806
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x197878

In progress compilations of various articles and materials on 2004 Election Fraud:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x311105
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=304579


Sincerely,

XXXX XXXXXX

[Peace Patriot]

1. Please kick through the weekend! n/t

[WeHoldTheseTruths]

2. Yes, important! Kick n/m

[Nightjock]

3. kick

[NationalEnquirer]

4. In the meantime, my FL senator Nelson will get...

A very rational, yet passionate, letter on why he is a boot licker.