Leftist 2004 election fraud BS
Jackie D sent me a link to a post on Wayne Madsen’s extremely lame site. This site is a dilly, event by moonbat standards. The entire premise of this post is another “Bush/Rove stole the 2004 too” rant. What they claim is that a programmer, a certain Clint Curtis, issued a notarized affidavit that stated:
They don’t have anything and if they did the Democrats would already pursuing this in court.
How do I know? I’m sooooo glad you asked! Because the Democrats have never hesitated to try to win in court what they couldn’t win at the ballot box. If they thought they had even a remote chance of stealing the election we would be in court now.
Ask your self this question: if the Democrats had anybody who would testify under oath that he wrote software that would steal votes would they be screaming about the fraud to CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN/et al? Or would they just sit quietly and while Wayne Madsen and other crusaders bitched about the stolen elections on moonbat websites?
No the Terry McAuliffe wouldn’t remain quite! Would Terry McAuliffe, the same guy who went to Fahrenheit 911 and pronounced it factual just shrug his shoulders if he was presented with hard data of voter fraud and say something like “Well, maybe will kick up a fuss next time”? NO! He would raise hell today if he though he had something!
And that is the major indicator that Wayne Madsen and all of the other moonbats who are screaming about “stolen elections are LYING!. They don’t have anything and if they did we would be hearing about it from Terry McAuliffe. They DON’T have anything!
To assume the reverse means that Terry McAuliffe, who deliberately supported a draft dodger for U.S. President (Clinton), would deliberately not pursue genuine voting irregularities.
To assume the reverse mean that Terry McAuliffe, who deliberately supported for U.S. President, a traitor who turned on the U.S. in a time of war (Kerry) would deliberately not pursue genuine voting irregularities.
Now getting back to this Clint Curtis, who allegedly did a notarized affidavit that states he wrote software that stole votes. Deliberately signing a false affidavit is perjury. I challenge the Democrats to just shut up and sue. I DARE YOU.
A little googling helped me find this nutjob site. This site featured an account of what exactly Clinton Curtis claims to have happened:
OK. Now let me make a statement about Curtis’ claims. I am also a software engineer and I am competent to challenge any bogus statements. Curtis made a statement that it would be almost impossible to hide “extra features”, such as vote stealing, in the source code without the purpose of this code being obvious. He is correct.
He then went on to say, “if the code were compiled before anyone was allowed to review it then any vote fraud would remain invisible to detection.” There are two ways to understand this statement and competent software engineers, skilled in the art, understand both interpretations are wrong.
The first ways is something like that the original source code is unreadable or something after compiling. This is so false that I doubt he intended to say this.
The other way to understand this is Curtis is suggesting that a different program, on with the “extra features” is compiled and that program is loaded into the voting machines then it would be undetectable. This is also false. This premise is false because:
The complied code can be disassembled. Disassembly is the process of examining machine code (the raw bits that the voting machine was programmed with) and generating the voting machines program’s assembly code.
Now admittedly the programming machine was not programmed machine code so the program generated by reverse assembly is different than the high level language program that was originally used to program the voting machine. This is an inconvenience to understanding the voting machine’s program, not a show stopper.
The complied code in the voting machines can be electrically compared—bit for bit—with another complied program. This means that you can prove that the code running the voting machines was generated by the source code. Just compile the source code that Diebold claims is running the voting machines and compare the compiled machine code with the machine code found in the voting machines. If it matches—bit for bit—then it is was derived from that source code. If not then you might—but not necessarily—have something that looks interesting.
Punchline: if the code in the voting machines doesn’t match the source code then you can easily prove it. If it does match the source code then visual inspection of the code by competent software engineers, who are skilled in the art, will be able to determent that the code has not vulnerabilities.
OK, now that I’ve driven a stake though “the voting machines stole the election” myth, I work on Wayne Madsen’s extremely lame site. What a piece of work! I’ve around and this is one of the most toxic and deliberately dumbest sites I’ve looked at.
First of all, I took one look at Wayne Madsen’s site. His site is a cesspool of leftist BS.
Yup, if stupidity had mass this web site would implode into a black hole.
…while he was employed by the NASA Kennedy Space Center contractor, Yang Enterprises, Inc., during 2000, Feeney solicited him to write a program to "control the vote." At the time, Curtis was of the opinion that the program was to be used for preventing fraud in the in the 2002 election in Palm Beach County, Florida. His mind was changed, however, when the true intentions of Feeney became clear: the computer program was going to be used to suppress the Democratic vote in counties with large Democratic registrations.
They don’t have anything and if they did the Democrats would already pursuing this in court.
How do I know? I’m sooooo glad you asked! Because the Democrats have never hesitated to try to win in court what they couldn’t win at the ballot box. If they thought they had even a remote chance of stealing the election we would be in court now.
Ask your self this question: if the Democrats had anybody who would testify under oath that he wrote software that would steal votes would they be screaming about the fraud to CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN/et al? Or would they just sit quietly and while Wayne Madsen and other crusaders bitched about the stolen elections on moonbat websites?
No the Terry McAuliffe wouldn’t remain quite! Would Terry McAuliffe, the same guy who went to Fahrenheit 911 and pronounced it factual just shrug his shoulders if he was presented with hard data of voter fraud and say something like “Well, maybe will kick up a fuss next time”? NO! He would raise hell today if he though he had something!
And that is the major indicator that Wayne Madsen and all of the other moonbats who are screaming about “stolen elections are LYING!. They don’t have anything and if they did we would be hearing about it from Terry McAuliffe. They DON’T have anything!
To assume the reverse means that Terry McAuliffe, who deliberately supported a draft dodger for U.S. President (Clinton), would deliberately not pursue genuine voting irregularities.
To assume the reverse mean that Terry McAuliffe, who deliberately supported for U.S. President, a traitor who turned on the U.S. in a time of war (Kerry) would deliberately not pursue genuine voting irregularities.
Now getting back to this Clint Curtis, who allegedly did a notarized affidavit that states he wrote software that stole votes. Deliberately signing a false affidavit is perjury. I challenge the Democrats to just shut up and sue. I DARE YOU.
A little googling helped me find this nutjob site. This site featured an account of what exactly Clinton Curtis claims to have happened:
In a sworn affidavit (pdf file) Monday, a former programmer for a NASA contractor said that he developed a vote-rigging prototype at the request of a then-Florida state representative who is now a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.
[…]
While working for Yang Enterprises in Florida, the 46-year-old programmer says he was instructed by then-Republican state representative Tom Feeney to “develop a prototype of a voting program that could alter the vote tabulation in the election and be undetectable.”
[…]
The programmer, Clinton Curtis, said that he was told the program needed to be “touch-screen capable, the user should be able to trigger the program without any additional equipment, [and that] the programming was to remain hidden even if the source code was inspected.”
Curtis asserts that he told Feeney it would be nearly impossible to write a code to change the voting results if anyone were able to view the source code.
“However,” he added, “if the code were compiled before anyone was allowed to review it then any vote fraud would remain invisible to detection.”
OK. Now let me make a statement about Curtis’ claims. I am also a software engineer and I am competent to challenge any bogus statements. Curtis made a statement that it would be almost impossible to hide “extra features”, such as vote stealing, in the source code without the purpose of this code being obvious. He is correct.
He then went on to say, “if the code were compiled before anyone was allowed to review it then any vote fraud would remain invisible to detection.” There are two ways to understand this statement and competent software engineers, skilled in the art, understand both interpretations are wrong.
The first ways is something like that the original source code is unreadable or something after compiling. This is so false that I doubt he intended to say this.
The other way to understand this is Curtis is suggesting that a different program, on with the “extra features” is compiled and that program is loaded into the voting machines then it would be undetectable. This is also false. This premise is false because:
The complied code can be disassembled. Disassembly is the process of examining machine code (the raw bits that the voting machine was programmed with) and generating the voting machines program’s assembly code.
Now admittedly the programming machine was not programmed machine code so the program generated by reverse assembly is different than the high level language program that was originally used to program the voting machine. This is an inconvenience to understanding the voting machine’s program, not a show stopper.
The complied code in the voting machines can be electrically compared—bit for bit—with another complied program. This means that you can prove that the code running the voting machines was generated by the source code. Just compile the source code that Diebold claims is running the voting machines and compare the compiled machine code with the machine code found in the voting machines. If it matches—bit for bit—then it is was derived from that source code. If not then you might—but not necessarily—have something that looks interesting.
Punchline: if the code in the voting machines doesn’t match the source code then you can easily prove it. If it does match the source code then visual inspection of the code by competent software engineers, who are skilled in the art, will be able to determent that the code has not vulnerabilities.
OK, now that I’ve driven a stake though “the voting machines stole the election” myth, I work on Wayne Madsen’s extremely lame site. What a piece of work! I’ve around and this is one of the most toxic and deliberately dumbest sites I’ve looked at.
First of all, I took one look at Wayne Madsen’s site. His site is a cesspool of leftist BS.
Item one: This site has a link to Air America. Airhead America is the leftist nutbar radio network founded by Al Franken and Al Gore. I think it still has a station that broadcasts it program.
Item Two: This site has a link to Eminem the “vote or die” idotarian rap “artist”.
Item Three: notice the spinning “Peace Sign” java applet. It’s so 1996 that it hurts. Doesn’t Madsen have a interior decorator or something to save him from such esthetic disasters? I don’t know which is more pathetic: having a peace sign on your site or the making it spin. Can you say “what a clueless loser”? I knew you could.
Item four: Can you believe that this rube actually has a power-fist salute?
(It’s located next to the whirling peace sign) I can’t believe that anybody
could be so deliberately retro! I mean, is he just feigning that it is 1968 or
is he just stupid? Sheesh, what a rube. And I though the DU web site was dumb.
Item Five: notice the “European left” link with the red star that is located about several links down in the left column? (no pun intended)
These indicators show that Wayne Madsen is a raving lefty. Here is a sample of his post’s titles:
- Iraq : the body found was not Margaret Hassan
- The Inevitable Triumph of Progressive Thought
- The Long March...and the Million Worker March
- 9th-16th of November - International Week against the Apartheid Wall
- Marchers demand Iraq withdrawal
- Is the Annexation of Canada part of Bush’s Military Agenda?
- Bush the butcher not welcome in Ottawa
- Eating Ballots Forbidden in Canada (Research Article)
I’m not going to comment of these posts (so little time, so much stupidity) but I cannot let this one pass:
BAGHDAD, The U.S. military has used poison gas and other non-conventional weapons against civilians in Fallujah, eyewitnesses report.”Poisonous gases have been used in Fallujah,” 35-year-old trader from Fallujah Abu Hammad told IPS. ”They used everything -- tanks, artillery, infantry, poison gas. Fallujah has been bombed to the ground.”
Yup, if stupidity had mass this web site would implode into a black hole.
posted by johnh | 11:18 PM
<< Home