Sanders called for abolishing the CIA

[Peter Lemkin]

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 84%"]The Suspect Massachusetts 2016 Primary

By Theodore Soares [/TD]
[TD="width: 16%"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Inthe Massachusetts March 1, 2016 primary Democratic Party race, thecomputerized vote count declared candidate Clinton the winner but theexit polls indicated candidate Sanders to be the winner by a marginof 6.6%. These same exit polls accurately predicted the results ofeach and all of the Republican candidates. Until the US joins a longlist of many other countries that protect the integrity of theirelections through publicly observed hand counting of paper ballots,our elections are liable to be suspect.
Exitpolling has been performed in the US and other countries for decadesand the science and proper methodology is well established to obtainan accurate prediction of the final vote. For years, manyresearchers have pointed to the discrepancies between exit pollresults and the unverified computer counts in US elections. The mainresponse by the defenders of computerized voting, while expressingblind faith in the unverified computer counting, has been to claimthat the exit polls may go wrong because respondents, moreenthusiastic for a particular candidate, would be more likely toagree to be polled. The recent Massachusetts Super Tuesday primariesdid not support this theory.

(image by Ted Soares)

[1]Exit polls published by CNN immediately after close of polls.
[2]Reported computer vote count from www.nytimes.com/elections/results. 100% vote count. Exit poll projected winner is highlightedin green. Reported winner for the state is highlighted in yellow.
[3]Discrepancies are the reported vote count percentage less exit pollpercentage. Negative result indicates lower vote count thanpredicted by the exit polls. Positive result indicates higher votecount than predicted by the exit polls. In contrast to the lowdiscrepancy in the Republican Party race, the discrepancy for theDemocratic Party race is much greater than the exit poll margin oferror of 5.4% (95% confidence level) for the difference between thetwo candidates.
[4]Margin of error for differences (at 95% CI) calculated according to: Franklin, C .The'Margin of Error' for Differences in Polls .University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. October 2002, revisedFebruary 2007.
TheRepublican Party primary race has been widely acknowledged as morepolarized and contentious than the Democratic Party primary race. Inthe current election cycle, many Republican Party voters demonstrateenthusiasm for candidate Trump as many Democratic Party votersdemonstrate enthusiasm for candidate Sanders. Yet, the exit pollresults for the Republican Party closely matched the final computervote count for every candidate. This accuracy was obtained withabout 500 fewer respondents than for the Democratic Party. Thehigher number of respondents in the Democratic race should lead to asmaller margin of error. The same exit poll for the Democratic race,however, conducted at the same time and the same places, differedwidely from the final computer count and the margin of error for theexit poll. This difference turned a Sanders' victory into a defeat.
InUS elections, very few precincts conduct verified hand counts ofpaper ballots. Almost all ballots are counted by computer softwarehidden from human eyes. A few years ago, MIT Technology Reviewpublished the article Howto Hack an Election in One Minute reporting on Princeton University's research project SecurityAnalysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine finding how easy it was to hack into a computer voting system tochange the results of an election while remaining totallyundetectable. The BrennanCenter for Justice at NYU School of Law in their report TheMachinery of Democracy: Protecting Elections in an Electronic World found "more than 120 potential threats to [computerized] votingsystems."
Dueto such concerns, to insure the integrity of public elections,Germany reverted to publicly observed hand counting of paper ballotsfor all their elections. In 2006 the FederalConstitutional Court of Germany determined that while vote fraudwith hand-counted ballots would be easy to detect, "programmingerrors in the software or deliberate electoral fraud committed bymanipulating the software of electronic voting machines can berecognized only with difficulty. The very wide-reaching effect ofpossible errors of the voting machines or of deliberate electoralfraud make special precautions necessary in order to safeguard theprinciple of the public nature of elections."
Noamount of testing and certifying procedures for the machine countingof votes or the availability of paper trails, post election audits,or recounts could satisfy Germany's constitutional requirement thatall important aspects of the electoral process be publicly observableand that "[t]he voters themselves must be able to understandwithout detailed knowledge of computer technology whether their votescast are recorded in an unadulterated manner."
Germanyis not alone among technologically advanced nations that rejectcomputerized counting in their elections. Countries such as Canada,France, Ireland, Italy, Denmark, Finland and 53other countries protect the integrity of their elections withhand-counted paper ballots.
Asthe Massachusetts primaries indicate, the integrity of our electionswill be always questionable and suspect until we join the many othercountries that safeguard their elections with publicly observed handcounting of paper ballots.

Good video report on electronic theft of Ohio vote and assassination of one main player who might have been willing to whistleblow.

https://www.corbettreport.com/mp4/ep226.mp4

The system is now even more embedded and 'accepted' and widespread. Expect to see lots of this in the primaries and in the next elections! Long before computers made it easy, Stalin made a very important observation, "it is not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes."

[Doug Fisher]

Well, Hilary sure ain't offering this or anything remotely like it. Just more of the same. I would love to vote for Bernie but cannot. Even though I think the rest of the world should be able to vote in US elections since the US thinks it owns it all

And because the rest of the world suffers the consequences of US foreign policy and interventionism...:tampfeet::

Well, if it makes you feel any better....WE [Americans] don't get to vote either.....after specially 'selected' candidates are put up for the false final two party vote, the fix is in before anyone votes...

Harvey Wasserman, I wanted to talk to you now about voting machines
HARVEY WASSERMAN: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: and your concern over the years that electronic voting could be used to steal elections. Are you still concerned about this?
HARVEY WASSERMAN: Well, electronic voting was used to steal the presidential election right here in Ohio in 2004. John Kerry was the rightful winner in 2004 over George W. Bush. The secretary of state at the time, J. Kenneth Blackwell, and the governor, Robert Taft, used their power of electronic vote count to flip the vote to George W. Bush from John Kerry.
AMY GOODMAN: How do you know this?
HARVEY WASSERMAN: We watched itI grew up here, Amy. We watched it, totally, right up close and personal. We did the accounting. I work with a political scientist named Bob Fitrakis. We're about to come out with another book, The Strip & Flip of the 2016 Selection. They are stripping the voter rollsand Greg Palast, the great investigative reporter, is doing great on thisremoving African Americans, Hispanics, people who might incline to vote progressive, and theyso thatin 2004, they stripped 300,000 people from the voter rolls here in the urban areas. Bush only won by less than 120 [thousand].
And this year, about 80 percent of the vote nationally will be cast on electronic voting machines. There is no verifiability. In six key swing statesFlorida, North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa and Arizonayou have Republican governors and Republican secretaries of state, and no method of verifying the electronic vote count. At midnight or whenever it is on election night, those two guys can go in there with an IT person and flip the outcome of an electronically counted vote within about 60 seconds. So all this millions and millions of dollars, people out campaigning and so on, can be negated by an electronic vote flip late at night on election night, and there is no way to verify what's happened.
AMY GOODMAN: They didn't do this with President Obama in 2008.
HARVEY WASSERMAN: They did. He had too many votes; he was too far out. They couldn'tit would have taken them too many, to flip too many states. [inaudible] believe Obama won by well over 10 million votes. The lastthe final vote count was inofficial, was in 7 or 8 million.
AMY GOODMAN: But what gives you this idea?
HARVEY WASSERMAN: Because we've seen it happen. When you compare exit polls, which are generally accurate to within 1 percent, with the electronic outcome, there are huge variations. And we have documented many dozens of different things that they have done over the years to flip electronic votes.
AMY GOODMAN: How does e-voting, electronic voting, work? And who controls the controls on it?
HARVEY WASSERMAN: Well, that's the key. The electronic voting machines are owned by private corporations, which are Republican in orientation, generally. And the courts have ruled that the source code on these electronic voting machines is proprietary. So, even the governments that buy or lease these machines have no access to a final verification process. Even Ronald Reagan said, "Trust, but verify." And we know that the vote count was flipped in 2004. We know it was flipped in Volusia County in 2000.
AMY GOODMAN: Where is Volusia County?
HARVEY WASSERMAN: In Florida, when Al Gore basically was the rightful winner, and George W. Bush won the election. I mean, the only great
AMY GOODMAN: And they were electronic voting machines?
HARVEY WASSERMAN: In Volusia County, they were, yes. In the southern part of Florida, they used butterfly ballots, as you'll recall. The only good thing we can say about George W. Bush is the American people never actually elected him president. And we're looking now at 2016, at an election that will be very easily flipped, in those six key swing states and elsewhere.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think is the answer?
HARVEY WASSERMAN: We have to have universal, hand-counted paper ballots. And Bernie Sanders has endorsed that. We have to have automatic voter registration, where people can monitor the registration rolls, because people are being stripped from the registration rolls, mostly, of course, African-American and Hispanic. But this year, we're not going to get that. And this year, it's going to be very, very difficult, in a close election, to monitor exactly what happens, because these are black boxes. We have a wonderful actress named Bev Harris, who's been working with Greg Palast and others, who has shown, in black box voting, that the public has no real access, no verification process for the electronic votes. And so we're going through this huge charade here of a national campaign, primaries and then a general election, where hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent, and on election night, in 60 seconds, the actual outcome can be flipped electronically in key swing states with no verification whatsoever.
AMY GOODMAN: If there are electronic voting machines everywhere, which there are now, right?
HARVEY WASSERMAN: Pretty much, yes.
AMY GOODMAN: How do you think they can be protected, people can be sure that their vote is counted, that they cast, even using electronic voting machines?
HARVEY WASSERMAN: They can't be. You cannot verify an electronic voting machine. They are privately owned by private corporations, and the proprietary software prevents the public from getting access to the actual vote count. We're going into a national election, and not just the presidency, but Senate seats, House seats. We believe three Senate seats in 2014 were stolenin North Carolina, Colorado and Alaskathat the Republicans do not have a legitimate 54-seat, or whatever it is, majority in the Senate. And this will happen again. It's not just the presidency. And we've beenwe have written seven books about this, Bob Fitrakis and I, from our experience here in Ohio in 2004. And again, we have a Republican governor, Republican secretary of state, no verifiability on the electronic vote count. It will be arbitrary, when push comes to shove, onmidnight, 1:00 on election nightwhat the outcome will be.
AMY GOODMAN: Why do you think just Republicans would do it?
HARVEY WASSERMAN: Oh, no, Democrats definitely do it. I havewe have strong questions about Rahm Emanuel being re-elected in Chicago, for example. We have no doubt that Scott Walker stole his re-election in Wisconsin.
AMY GOODMAN: Based on what?
HARVEY WASSERMAN: Based on the miraculous discovery of several thousand votes in a so-called glitched computer voting machine that gave him a victory where it was clearly a defeat. You know, this is stuff that's been going on a long time. These methods were perfected more or less overseas by the CIA and other covert and overt operations. They came back. It started in 1988 with George H.W. Bush using electronic voting machines in New Hampshire to beat Bob Dole in the 1988 primary. And we have seen since then the use of electronic voting machines all across the country to flip elections after they have stripped the voter rolls. And, you know
AMY GOODMAN: When you say "stripping the voter rolls," you mean?
HARVEY WASSERMAN: Yes, well, Greg Palast has reported on this. In Florida 2000, 90,000 mostly black and Hispanic voters were stripped out of the voter rolls before the election, in a vote count that was won by 600 votes. And in Ohio 2004, 300,000 voters in primarily urban areas were stripped off the voter rolls. People showed up to vote in the same precinctas did I, by the waythey wereI was denied my absentee ballot, and we had a federal lawsuit on this, which we won and went nowhere after that.
But the reality is that we are voting in black boxes and that the governors and secretaries of state of these key swing statesbut wherever you have a governor and secretary of state from the same party, be they Democrat or Republican, they have the power, under the electronic voting system, to flip the outcome of an election, with no verifiability, because the courts have ruled that these privately owned voting machines have proprietary software. It's a nightmare. And it's not democracy. I mean, Bernie Sanders has shown that the electionthat the campaign finance is rigged, that the economy is rigged. Why wouldn't they take the very small next step to rig the electronic voting machines?

Yep. Remember Omaha-World-Herald, heavily involved in the Franklin Scandal cover up? They previously had a stake in ES&S.

http://www.omaha.com/money/change-at-hel...e4fa1.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/10/s...ears/print

And of course Diebold and the CIA...

http://peoplesworld.org/who-is-counting-...-interest/

[Magda Hassan]

This was quite a good website in the past but not sure what is happening here now.Quiet.
http://blackboxvoting.org/

[Peter Lemkin]

Screw Paul Krugman: Bernie Had Better Keep Exposing Hillary's Legendary Level of Corruption

Posted on April 2, 2016 by willyloman
by Scott Creighton
Leave it to Paul Krugman, the voice of the "responsible" left, to tell us when it's time to stop exposing the criminal face of the shape-shifting chameleon that is Hillary Clinton so that we can "win" the upcoming election and keep a globalist Business-first war-mongering self-serving Democrat in the White House. Because, as you know, it's always better than the alternative. Right?
In an op-ed for the New York Times, Krugman writes about how Bernie Sanders has to start acting like an adult and stop "feeding the right-wing disinformation machine" by talking about how corrupt Clinton is.

"Engaging in innuendo suggesting, without evidence, that Clinton is corrupt is, at this point, basically campaigning on behalf of the RNC. If Sanders really believes, as he says, that it's all-important to keep the White House out of Republican hands, he should stop all that and tell his staff to stop it too."Paul Krugman, NYT

By far and away, Krugman's career-minded pandering aside, Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt politician left standing this election cycle. Period. And she's dishonest. That's been proven time and time again.
Let's take a look at a few of the most recent examples of work establishing Hillary Clinton's criminal bona fides, shall we? Let's see if it's just Bernie doing that work "on behalf of the RNC" as Paul seems to suggest.
Right now there are as many as 147 FBI agents working on her email case. That's the story about how as Sec. of State, Hillary Clinton decided to set up her own email server, in her home, so that she and her staff could edit her communications while serving this country in that position. It was TOTALLY illegal and done for the sole purpose of getting away with criminal behavior without leaving an email trail behind that could expose her down the road.
Clinton lied about Benghazi when she knew for a fact that the attack on the compound had nothing to do with some stupid video the FBI paid a snitch to make for a honey-pot sting in L.A.
She had her lifelong friend, Sidney Blumenthal, running around in Libya trying to cut deals with anyone he could so they, the Clinton Foundation, could make money in the rubble that was left in the wake of her regime change operation in the country. Blumenthal sent her an email back then suggesting the French and Brits really only wanted the oil in Libya and to keep the country's beloved leader from using his vast gold reserves to usurp French control of the region. So much for her "humanitarian intervention"
Clinton's "compassionate invasion" of Haiti following the 2010 earthquake has been an unmitigated disaster for everyone involved EXCEPT for Bill and Hillary Clinton and a few of their favorite businesses. Her email scandal revealed how the state department worked diligently to put a bright smiley happy face on the story, trying to make it look less corrupt.
In 2013, Hillary Clinton's brother took a job on the advisory board of a Haiti gold mining company. I wonder what kind of influence that hire bought them.
Just this past month, Haitians are protesting in large numbers the corruption and graft of the Clintons in their country and how they practically stole the billions of dollars of recovery money the people of the world donated for the people of Haiti, to help them rebuild after the earthquake. Hillary Clinton, then Sec. of State, put her corrupt husband in charge of that money.

"Six years after the massive earthquake in Haiti, many people in the country continue to hold Hillary Clinton's State Department and the Clinton Foundation responsible for a botched recovery effort that cost billions for seemingly little returns.
The New York Times reports that the Clintons have been a top target of protesters in Port au Prince, who claim earthquake aid money was mismanaged and lucrative deals went to Clinton cronies." Alana Goodman, Mar. 2016

Back in 2009, when Manuel Zelaya was illegally removed from office in a coup in Honduras, the Clinton machine worked overtime to make sure the leftist president remained out of office, and the far-right coup leaders who replaced him, remained in power.

As for the Clinton connections, Grandin wrote, "In the Nation,Dana Frank and Icovered that coup as it unfolded. Later, as Clinton's emails were released, others, such as Robert Naiman, Mark Weisbrot and Alex Main, revealed the central role she played in undercutting Manuel Zelaya, the deposed president, and undercutting the opposition movement demanding his restoration. In so doing, Clinton allied with the worst sectors of Honduran society." AlterNet, Mar. 2016

Before her murder, anti-coup activist Berta Cáceres, singled out Hillary Clinton as the one leading the charge to bolster legitimacy for the illegal government that took over Honduras.
Not only was that government that Hillary backed (and helped create) an illegal one, they were and are a brutal military junta, for the most part, serving the interests of foreign businesses who have flooded into the country in the wake of the coup in order to strip the nation of it's natural resources.

The Clinton-brokered election did indeed install and legitimate a militarized regime based on repression. In the interview, Cáceres says that Clinton's coup-government, under pressure from Washington, passed terrorist and intelligence laws that criminalized political protest. Cáceres called it "counterinsurgency," carried out on behalf of "international capital"mostly resource extractorsthat has terrorized the population, murdering political activists by the high hundreds. "Every day," Cáceres said elsewhere, "people are killed." The Nation, Mar. 2016

As far as the murder of Berta Caceres is concerned, it's still unsolved at this point. There is one witness, Gustavo Castro, a well known Mexican national, activist, and journalist but he is currently in custody of the illegal military junta running Honduras at this point and is not likely to ever be seen again.

We still don't have a clear idea of the events surrounding Cáceres's murder. There is one witness, Gustavo Castro, a Mexican national, activist, and journalist, who was with Cáceres when gunmen burst into her bedroom. Berta died in his arms. Castro was himself shot twice, but survived by playing dead.
The Honduran governmentthat "unity government" Clinton is proud ofhas Castro in lockdown, refusing him contact with the outside world. The Nation, Mar. 2016

So I wonder who killed the activist woman who fingered Hillary Clinton. Right before her run for the White House.
Hmmm…
In a recent interview with Rachel "Suck Up" Maddow, Hillary Clinton was asked if she would consider shutting down the Clinton Foundation or the Clinton Global(ist) Initiative while she was president in order to avoid any perception of corruption or influence peddling.
Clinton's response was too say the way to fix that was through "transparency" with the for-profit institutions. Translation: "hell no. I can make a lot of money with those things while running the country"
Transparency or lack thereof, is Hillary's biggest weakness in the eyes of the general population. At least that is true of those who are paying attention these days, and a lot of us are paying attention these days.
When it comes to real lefties like myself refusing to back Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee for the White House, the reason is simple: it's the corruption, stupid.
She is a liar. She is a whore to Goldman Sachs and any other major corporation or financial interest that has money to stuff in her panties. She installs brutal dictatorships that literally kill real leftists with impunity while she sings their praises and calls them "democracies" until she can't anymore as the rest of the world expose them for what they are. Forget Honduras and Haiti… she was family friends with Mubarak in Egypt and supported his brutal dictatorship up until the moment she finally had to admit he was killing protesters like it was going out of style and called for his removal.
Hillary Clinton doesn't deserve to be in the White House and I don't care how many op-eds Paul Krugman writes on the subject, I'm not going to stop reporting on her corruption just like those "right wing" publications I just quoted or linked to like: Salon, Politico, AlterNet and the Nation.
Truth be told, it's not the Republican Party that is fragmented these days, it's the Dems. We've been busted up since Obama was the projected winner of the nomination back in 2008.
The anti-war, anti-globalization left was unified under the Bush administration like never before in my way too many years of adulthood.
With the coronation of the neoliberal Business Firster Barack Obama, the real left broke from the petite bourgeoisie, play it safe, DNC "pragmatic" left and ever since then, our numbers have grown while the Business Party left of Clinton, Obama, Clinton is dying on the vine. Just check out Bernie's rallies if you don't believe me. Or check out the massive difference in the voting in states that don't use the hijacked electronic voting machines… that's show you what the real numbers should look like.
Paul Krugman is essentially saying "ignore Hillary's corruption and war-mongering and lies because The Donald is bad" and frankly that argument, though it is going to be the call to arms for the Killary Campaign in the near future, is spurious at best and insulting beyond measure.
And because The Donald is so "bad", we are supposed to rally behind a proven criminal and war-mongering war profiteer? And that's Paul's assessment of the situation? We have to shut up about the truth about Hillary because we want to empower her and the Clinton Foundation even more by sticking her and her private email accounts in the White House?
Is he insane?
I don't care if Bernie steals the nomination at this point. He better not stop talking about how corrupt she is… because she is corrupt and there are plenty of left-leaning publications that have exposed the remarkable level of corruption she has reached over the years.
If she looses to Cruz the televangelist or Comb-over Trump, you will see the left come together instantaneously. They'll be back out on the streets where they belong protesting like they should have been during the left cover days of ObamaGod.
Unfortunately, that's exactly why she will "win" the presidency. Four more years of left cover war-mongering and neoliberal regime change ops across the world. That's what we will get and that is why I hope Bernie keeps raking her corrupt ass over the coals every chance he gets.

[Alan Ford]

What I'd give to have a legitimate Free Press again. It's truly a sad day for representative democracy when the current MSM sells out to do the bidding of the highest bidders.

But, hey, guess if you're already an active part of covering up a five decades old lie about the events in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, what's the harm in tilting an election by belittling a genuine voice of the people who dares to confront the status-quo and hold them accountable. Something tells me Revolutionary heroes like Henry (Patrick); Jefferson (Thomas); and Madison (James) would be labeled "terrorists" today.

[Peter Lemkin]

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 84%"]The Answer to the Question: Why on Earth Would Anyone Vote for Bernie NOW?

By jenny miller [/TD]
[TD="width: 16%"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


Thereason we are writing in Bernie is because he is the person who won theprimary, and we believe in democracy. Even after all the election fraud we sawhappening in state after state during the primaries, Bernie still won the first-floor vote at the DNC convention, and some observers say there were actuallytwo floor votes that he won. It was only when the superdelegates were trottedout, representing no one but themselves and their corporate colleagues, that itwas made to appear that Hillary had won the nomination. Not only did Bernie winthe primary, all polls show Bernie coming in ahead of any other candidate inthe general election, even when he's not technically running. Isn't that whatour democracy is? The candidate that the most people want to have as presidentis the one who is voted into office?

Bernie Sanders, June 2015

Voting for Bernie is not a feel-good protest vote. Bernie still has a path tothe White House. (The other progressive favorite, Jill Stein, does not have thepossibility of winning in this election cycle.) The path is sometimes describedas "opdeny270" and was first brought to widespread attention by Michael E.Sparks ("the independent thinker" on wordpress). To summarize this strategy:most states are winner-takes-all: whoever gets the most votes wins that state'sentire Electoral College vote. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win. IfTrump and Clinton are running neck and neck, as they currently are, one stategoing to Bernie could prevent either of them from getting the 270 votes. Themost likely state for this to happen in is VT, where a polls conducted bywrite-in phonebankers a week ago showed Bernie significantly ahead of the othercandidates (Bernie 48%, Hillary 11%, Trump 16% and Jill 5%). Although Michael E. Sparks originally calledfor the write-in campaign to focus on Vermont, it has since morphed into a muchwider campaign, which includes all the states where state laws would allow awrite-in for Bernie to be counted.
There are twelve states that will definitely count write-in votes even if thecandidate did not sign up or register. These are Vermont, CA, WI, WY, OR, WA,AL, IA, NH, RI, NJ plus DC. The deny270 strategy is for people to vote forBernie in these states, and Jill Stein in the remaining ones, where votes forBernie will not count. If no one gets 270 votes, the vote for president thengoes to the newly-elected House of Representatives. There will be newBerniecrats in office. The Republican leaders hate Hillary with a passion andmost of them have been denouncing Trump in recent weeks, since they feel he isdestroying their party. By law, they would have to choose from the top threeelectoral vote-getters so that would leave Bernie. He has a unique ability toappeal to people across party lines. (Some people have wondered why Jill Stein couldnot end up in the third-place position for consideration in The ElectoralCollege? That won't happen. because at best, Jill Stein's supporters are hopingshe'll get 5-15% of the vote. She is largely unknown to most Americans andthere is no chance she will come in ahead of all other candidates in any ofthese "winner-takes-all" elections.) The only other possibleElectoral College vote-getter would be McMullin in Utah, but the latest pollsdo not show this to be a real possibility.

As far as the oft-heard refrain that "Bernie does not want to be presidentany more," it's hard to for me to fathom how anyone can seriously believethis. He sacrificed what are supposed to be his and Jane's relaxing retirementyears to campaign his heart out, giving sometimes two speeches a day to crowdsof thousands all over the country. Even his younger aides couldn't keep up. Theprimary was stolen from him in many states and again at the convention. (Statisticiansat U.C. Berkeley and Stanford concluded that, based on the exit polls, thepossibility of Hillary having won the primary without election fraud were onein 77 billion). Bernie got stomped--and, wanting to retain his position of powerin the senate, he endorsed Hillary. BERNIE NEVER DROPPED OUT OF THE RACE. Henever conceded to Hillary at the convention. He did not call for a vote byacclamation, but instead recommended that Hillary be "selected" asthe nominee, a fitting way to describe the victory of someone who didn'tactually win. And when a write-in organizer recently called the FEC to see ifBernie was still listed as a candidate, they replied "Yes he is. He wouldhave let us know if he was dropping out." Bernard Sanders is still listedon their website as a candidate for President.


Although Bernie is unable to officially endorse the write-in effort withoutlosing his position in the senate if Hillary were to win, he did actually sayon video recently that he thought it would be fine if people in Vermont wrotehim in--which, as I explained above, is the key state for this strategy to besuccessful. He also said on the Bill Maher show a couple weeks ago that he wishesit was him that was campaigning for President all over the country right nowinstead of Hillary. Doesn't sound likesomeone who no longer wants to be President.

There are many other clues as to his true feelings, some of them coming fromJane Sanders' tweets: When saboteur named Nicole Guerin, who was pretending tobe a write-in-Bernie organizer, announced to the world that she privately metwith Jane Sanders, and that Jane told her that people should not write in Bernie(which caused tsunamis of despair to ripple across all the Bernie write-incampaigns), Jane Sanders immediately sent out a tweet to set the recordstraight. Jane said the story was completely fabricated, was untrue, and shewould never tell people not to support Bernie, or whom to vote for. A write-inBernie activist named Donald Kronos had a chance to talk to Bernie when he wasin CA last month. He told him he was a CA Bernie elector (Electoral Collegeelectors are a CA technical requirement for a write-in vote for Bernie to becounted), and Bernie responded with a yuuuuge smile and words of appreciationand gratitude. You can see Donald Kronos' description of this encounter onyoutube, which he posted as an introduction to a clip of the Bill Maher tape Imentioned previously. I'll end my article by describing a dream that someone posted on facebook. Shewas at a large legislative-like meeting, sitting next to Bernie Sanders.Suddenly, in the middle of the solemn proceedings, she stood up and shouted"Bring Back Bernie." And to her amazement all the legislators in theroom then stood up and shouted "Bring Back Bernie." The drumbeat isgrowing. Whether he will be brought back via the Electoral College, or becauseHillary is indicted, or because the people demand that the true winner of theprimary be allowed to take his rightful place--many people still believe Berniewill be our next President. There's still time for people, no matter where theylive, to phonebank to VT and the other key states (go to bernievote.com oropdeny.com). There's still time to call the DNC. There's still time to vote,and convince your friends to vote. Election-fraud investigators Greg Palast andRFK Jr. recommend in "Steal Back Your Vote" that you go to yourelections office or other designated early-voting site to vote in person priorto the actual day of the election, assuming that your state permits earlyvoting. If you signed up to be anabsentee voter and decide to vote in person, you need to bring the ballot youreceived in the mail, and the return envelope it came with, plus your ID. Insome states, like CA, the write-in vote is actually entered on the envelope flap,where there is a place designated for this.

In ancient days, presidents were chosen based on a bird augury--hence our wordinauguration. The bird tribe has alreadyindicated who our next President should be. Bernie took his campaign as far as he couldtake it before he hit a brick wall. Now it's up to us to take it the rest ofthe way.

[Lauren Johnson]

There is another reason Bernie didn't win -- the non-aggression pact with leverage.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/794756750926876672