From today’s Pravda, a piece ostensibly about the “call” by “Hillary supporters,” urging her to challenge the results of the election—a piece that’s actually about the groundlessness of all and any claims that it was stolen. (Pravda-bros Trip Gabriel and David Sanger actually include a quote dismissing such suggestions as “conspiracy theory.”)

While saying much about Team Hillary’s disinclination to involve itself in anything so loony as a post-election study of the vote in those three states, Sanger/Gabriel say NOTHING of Jill Stein’s amazingly successful fundraising effort yesterday. 

Thus the Times keeps struggling to walk back its noisy prior claims that Russia may have hacked the vote; and, in so doing, demonstrates its usual weird ignorance of how our voting system works, and just how easily it can be hacked (and clearly has been hacked, repeatedly, at least since 2000, albeit not by Russia).

Compare that nugget of crapola from the NYTimes to Joe Lauria’s report, in Consortiumnews, and Jason Easley’s, on PoliticsUSA, on Jill Stein’s amazingly successful fundraising effort yesterday, to raise the money for those recounts.

Here are the links to all three:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/vote-count-hillary-clinton-trump.html?_r=0

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/11/24/greens-question-trumps-victory/

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/23/trump-hit-thanksgiving-surprise-green-party-files-recount-wi-mi-pa.html

MCM


While standing firm against the bigotry unleashed by Donald Trump, we also need to tell all those who voted for him in the hope of beneficial change—an end to “free trade,” or to endless wars abroad—that we’ll all stand WITH them in protest, when he ends up completely screwing them, along with everybody else (as usual).

 MCM

NYPD Takes Rutgers Professor For Psych Evaluation Because Of Political Tweet

BY JOHN DEL SIGNORE

A Rutgers professor who lives in Brooklyn was taken for a psychiatric evaluation by NYPD officers after he made political comments in class and on Twitter about conservatives, Trump, and gun control. Kevin Allred, an adjunct professor on the New Brunswick, NJ campus, says police came to his Greenpoint apartment on Tuesday night, and the officers told him Rutgers administrators had contacted the NYPD because of statements he made on campus and on Twitter.

Allred says that after the election he had a discussion in class about whether conservatives be so committed to the Second Amendment if more white people were killed by gun violence. Allred also tells the Daily News that “in class, we talked about flag burning generally as a form of protest, and what does the flag mean to different people.” Also after the election, Allred tweeted, “Rutgers, did you send out an email addressing the fears of MANY RU students for their safety in Trump’s amerika yet? did i miss it?” which seems innocuous.

Police did not arrest or charge Allred, but officers did force him to submit to a psychiatric evaluation. “They said, ‘Yes, you can refuse, but then we’ll take you by force,’” Allred told the News. “They kept saying, ‘You’re not under arrest, but if you don’t go with us we’ll take you by force.”

After two hours of evaluation, cops let Allred go home. He says Rutgers and the NYPD overreacted.

In a statement, the NYPD said, “We were informed by Rutgers PD that he made threats to kill white people and he was subsequently taken to Bellevue Hospital for evaluation.” Rutgers officials say a student filed a complaint against Allred, telling NJ.com in a statement, “The Rutgers University Police Department responded to a complaint from a student and took all appropriate action. We have no further comment.”

Allred is back at work on campus now, but if it’s not one thing it’s another…

 

READ MORE: 


EXIT POLLS INDICATE HILLARY CLINTON MIGHT HAVE WON

CAITLIN JOHNSTONE

Exit polls are showing that Hillary Clinton won in four key battleground states that the vote tally gave to Donald Trump. These states are North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Florida.

According to the exit polls conducted by Edison Research and reported by TDMS Research show that in North Carolina, there was a 5.8 point discrepancy in favor of Donald Trump, which would have awarded him the state. In Pennsylvania, there was a 5.5 point anomaly to Trump, a 4.8 percent swing to him in Wisconsin, and 2.7 point swing to him in Florida, taking him over the line in these three states as well.

If these states were counted, Hillary Clinton would be declared the winner of the 2016 presidential election.

In other countries, exit polls are considered a very accurate measure of voter intent and a clear indicator of election fraud, and have at times been used to prove fraud and force a new election, as CNN reported the Ukraine had to do back in 2004. Unlike opinion polls, they are known to be accurate to within a very small margin of error.

Mark Crispin Miller, Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication at NYU, and author of “Fooled Again: The Real Case for Electoral Reform” has noted that the American public generally demurs from placing importance on exit polls due to a long history of elections veering from the exit poll data. In fact, in America, a practice is made of “correcting” the exit poll data so it better matches the voter count, going under the assumption that voter count is correct.

There were other anomalies around the electronic machines too. Miller is particularly concerned with the 90,000 voters in Michigan who appeared to choose to “undervote” — that is, they did not vote for president, but they voted down ballot for all the other positions. In a state that was awarded to Trump by only 0.3 of a percent, these votes were crucial.

Add to that the voter purges and other voter suppression techniques, it’s little wonder that the United States electoral system comes dead last in the western world. The Electoral Integrity Project reports that American elections are less fair and secure than countries like Mongolia, Tunisia, Rwanda, and Brazil.

Miller asked in a press release, “Did 90,000 non-white workers, and ex-workers, in that state all cast those undervotes to mount that protest or were their ballots changed without their knowing it?”

Pointing to the deafening silence from the Hillary campaign itself, but also its many famous surrogates and endorsers, Miller wondered where “all the other lefty stars who worked so hard to get us all to vote for Hillary” have gone “in the face of ever-mounting evidence that Trump ‘won’ this election just as Hillary ‘won’ her party’s nomination: through rampant vote suppression and computerized election fraud.”

“With millions disenfranchised, coast to coast, through purges of the electronic voter rolls, and voter caging, and voter ID requirements, and partisan interference by election officials, and the deliberate placement of too few machines in certain precincts, and volleys of disinformation on the times and places to go vote—and as the exit polls suggest widespread manipulation of the vote counts throughout the swing states—why are we not hearing anything at all about it?” he said, going on to list the vast array of celebrities who were vocal during the campaign for Hillary, but are now conspicuously silent.

Dr. Jill Stein, Green party candidate and vocal campaigner for fair elections is also voicing her concerns. She told Inquisitr “These discrepancies have come to our attention and we have some people who are looking at them, so stay tuned.”

Dr. Stein confirmed that she too felt it strange that the Hillary campaign has declined to speak up about these exit poll anomalies around the electronic voting states, but pointed out that that has been a pattern of the Democrats. “We’ve been here before. Al Gore, and John Kerry for that matter, would not pursue the discrepancies in those elections either. Also from my understanding, there was still hundreds of thousands of uncounted mail-in votes that were not counted in Wisconsin when it was declared. There’s a bunch of funny things.”

“There is stuff there that really is curious.”

Dr. Stein wondered if Hillary’s own spotty record in the exit polls was to blame.

“You can’t help but wonder, for example, that because there were such huge discrepancies in the primaries, like up to twenty points or something like that, where Bernie was just way ahead and then lost,” she said. “There were some really big discrepancies and maybe Hillary feels like she can’t raise questions because her own record is a little tarnished on this? I don’t know, we’ll see.”

Mark agrees. “First of all, few ever question the official outcomes of elections, however strong the evidence of theft; and Hillary’s not in a position to contest her “loss” to Trump, since she herself would not have been her party’s nominee if not for serial election theft throughout the primary season,” he said.

Considering the outpouring of anger from Hillary supporters over the result and their many efforts to challenge the legitimacy of Donald Trump’s win, it would appear a given that the Democrats would pursue these exit poll anomalies which, if proven correct, would almost certainly give Hillary the presidency.

The silence about this avenue of pursuit from the Hillary camp is deafening.

“Have they ever pursued fraud like that? I don’t think they ever have; they all back away from it,” Dr. Stein told Inquisitr. “It’s only the Greens who take up these cases you know and just for the sake of election integrity, and we’ve been losing them anyhow, but I think it’s very important for the public to have our guard raised about this stuff.”

The Green Party are campaigning for ranked voting and hand-counted paper ballots among other measures to bring up the standard of American elections.

Dr. Stein remains hopeful that there will be movement in this area soon. “I know that people are poring over these numbers right now, and I’m hoping there will be some light to shed on this soon.”

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/3719288/exit-polls-indicate-hillary-clinton-might-have-won/#pYVRsvZvgsBPtyZJ.99

Exit polls are showing that Hillary Clinton won in four key battleground states that the vote tally gave to Donald Trump. These states are North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Florida.

According to the exit polls conducted by Edison Research and reported by TDMS Research show that in North Carolina, there was a 5.8 point discrepancy in favor of Donald Trump, which would have awarded him the state. In Pennsylvania, there was a 5.5 point anomaly to Trump, a 4.8 percent swing to him in Wisconsin, and 2.7 point swing to him in Florida, taking him over the line in these three states as well.

 

If these states were counted, Hillary Clinton would be declared the winner of the 2016 presidential election.

In other countries, exit polls are considered a very accurate measure of voter intent and a clear indicator of election fraud, and have at times been used to prove fraud and force a new election, as CNN reported the Ukraine had to do back in 2004. Unlike opinion polls, they are known to be accurate to within a very small margin of error.

Mark Crispin Miller, Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication at NYU, and author of “Fooled Again: The Real Case for Electoral Reform” has noted that the American public generally demurs from placing importance on exit polls due to a long history of elections veering from the exit poll data. In fact, in America, a practice is made of “correcting” the exit poll data so it better matches the voter count, going under the assumption that voter count is correct.

There were other anomalies around the electronic machines too. Miller is particularly concerned with the 90,000 voters in Michigan who appeared to choose to “undervote” — that is, they did not vote for president, but they voted down ballot for all the other positions. In a state that was awarded to Trump by only 0.3 of a percent, these votes were crucial.

Add to that the voter purges and other voter suppression techniques, it’s little wonder that the United States electoral system comes dead last in the western world. The Electoral Integrity Project reports that American elections are less fair and secure than countries like Mongolia, Tunisia, Rwanda, and Brazil.

Miller asked in a press release, “Did 90,000 non-white workers, and ex-workers, in that state all cast those undervotes to mount that protest or were their ballots changed without their knowing it?”

Pointing to the deafening silence from the Hillary campaign itself, but also its many famous surrogates and endorsers, Miller wondered where “all the other lefty stars who worked so hard to get us all to vote for Hillary” have gone “in the face of ever-mounting evidence that Trump ‘won’ this election just as Hillary ‘won’ her party’s nomination: through rampant vote suppression and computerized election fraud.”

“With millions disenfranchised, coast to coast, through purges of the electronic voter rolls, and voter caging, and voter ID requirements, and partisan interference by election officials, and the deliberate placement of too few machines in certain precincts, and volleys of disinformation on the times and places to go vote—and as the exit polls suggest widespread manipulation of the vote counts throughout the swing states—why are we not hearing anything at all about it?” he said, going on to list the vast array of celebrities who were vocal during the campaign for Hillary, but are now conspicuously silent.

Dr. Jill Stein, Green party candidate and vocal campaigner for fair elections is also voicing her concerns. She told Inquisitr “These discrepancies have come to our attention and we have some people who are looking at them, so stay tuned.”

Dr. Stein confirmed that she too felt it strange that the Hillary campaign has declined to speak up about these exit poll anomalies around the electronic voting states, but pointed out that that has been a pattern of the Democrats. “We’ve been here before. Al Gore, and John Kerry for that matter, would not pursue the discrepancies in those elections either. Also from my understanding, there was still hundreds of thousands of uncounted mail-in votes that were not counted in Wisconsin when it was declared. There’s a bunch of funny things.”

READ MORE: 


From Jonathan Simon:
Here is the EP/VC Pres table updated to yesterday evening (note the slowly shrinking redshift of the national EP/VC).
Now the caveat:  It is vitally important to understand, for anyone keeping score at home, that a number of states, including two critical ones, span two timezones. This is of critical importance because it means that the EPs are not publicly posted until a full hour after the polls have closed in much of the state and much of the votecount has come in. This in turn means that Edison has pretty much all of their Quick Counts, and enough overallvotecounts, that their algorithm is capable of adjusting the poll results to near congruence with the votecounts prior to first public posting.
Please make sure you understand this fully.
Unfortunately among the split-zone states we find FL and MI, both of which have a tiny part of their territory in a more western timezone, allowing most of the adjustment process to take place before we are able to screencapture anything. This goes a long way to explaining the apparent absence of red shift in Michigan and a relatively modest looking red shift in Florida.
Of the states that we are most closely scrutinizing, it should therefore come as no surprise that FL and MI look “cleaner” that NC, PA, OH, and WI. This must be taken with a big shaker of salt (i.e., FL and MI may be dirty as hell and are almost certainly a lot dirtier than they look on the EP/VC table)–though it may be a bit much to explain publicly, especially when first introducing this data to the unwashed.
As if it wasn’t tough enough. — Jonathan
screen-shot-2016-11-16-at-11-35-31-pm

From Jonathan Simon:

Mark:

Every nail on head.

Predictably no rising or falling star, no celeb, no funnyman or funnywoman, and God knows no luminary pundit is going to risk mussing their TV makeup by raising an eyebrow, getting a scratchy throat by clearing it, or possibly breaking a nail by hitting their keyboard with (as Yeats would put it) “a passionate intensity.” 

Nope, this one is left to us (unpaid election integrity advocates who wear no makeup, have bitten our nails to the quick, and have cleared our throats so often that we have built up protective callouses)—and, yes, to the people.

We’re going to have to act swiftly and decisively, before the consolidation and purging, before such dissidents as we are reclassified as “terrorists.”  And it’s going to have to have major economic impact—as in tax revolt, general strikes, mass consumer boycotts—in order to change anything, prospective or retrospective.

It’s come suddenly (though it was, at least in part, predictable, and predicted) to a head.

If we don’t recognize how much of a crisis this is, and respond with bravery, resolve, and organization, we’re done for, believe me. 

Jonathan


On “Morning Joe” today, Mike made a righteous case against the liberal media for its disastrous arrogance toward all those suffering workers, or ex-workers, who came out to vote for Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin and elsewhere.

As moving and perceptive as he was on that key point, however, toward the end he suddenly revealed his own deep cluelessness about ANOTHER crucial aspect of the trouble we’re all in today: the absolute corruption of our voting system.

Having made a cogent case for why so many folks in Michigan came out to vote for Trump, Mike then completely contradicted it—and, in so doing, grossly misinterpreted a stark electoral anomaly in Michigan—by pointing out that 90,000 Michiganders had cast NO vote for president, while completing every OTHER entry on their ballots.

His point was that those 90,000 people had deliberately refused to vote for Hillary OR Trump: something that he simply couldn’t know;

and a patronizing claim in its own way, since he was so confidently speaking FOR those voters—who may well have TRIED to vote for president, but whose votes were “counted” otherwise, by those who’d programmed the machines.

It’s happened before—in 2000, for example, when Al Gore (seemingly) “lost” Florida in part because a lot of voters in THAT state had had THEIR ballots edited by unseen hands: “There were about 27,000 of these ‘undervotes’ in three South Florida counties, ballots on which no vote for president was registered by machines the first time around,” as CBS News reported at the time.

Back then, “experts” explained that weird anomalty away by “speculating” that “more Democratic voters would be inexperienced or advanced in age” (a claim based on no evidence—and a laughable self-contradiction). And in the face of THIS anomaly—an “undervote” three times the size of that one 16 years ago—Mike came up with yet another blinding “explanation.”

How likely was it, really, that 90,000 Michiganders would have gone to all that trouble, going out to vote, but NOT for president, just to make the point (i.e., Mike’s point) that they weren’t happy with their choices? And just how likely was it in a state where, as Mike noted, TRUMP had so much strong support among the state’s white voters? Did 90,000 NON-white workers, and ex-workers, in that state all cast those undervotes to mount that protest—or were their ballots changed without their knowing it?

That likelihood is clearly INCONCEIVABLE to Michael Moore, as it was also INCONCEIVBLE to all the other media celebrities assembled there with him in “Morning Joe”—and as it’s clearly INCONCEIVABLE to all the other lefty stars who worked so hard to get us all to vote for Hillary, but who have all gone AWOL in the face of ever-mounting evidence that Trump “won” this election just as Hillary “won” her party’s nomination: through rampant vote suppression and computerized election fraud.

With millions disenfranchised, coast to coast, through purges of the electronic voter rolls, and voter caging, and voter ID requirements, and partisan interference by election officials, and the deliberate placement of too few machines in certain precincts, and volleys of disinformation on the times and places to go vote—and as the exit polls suggest widespread manipulation of the vote-counts throughout the swing states—why are we NOT hearing anything at all about it from Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Angela Davis, Gloria Steinem, Robert Reich, John Nichols or Paul Krugman, or Bruce Springsteen, Katy Perry, George Clooney, Beyonce, JZ, Sarah Silverman, Bill Maher, John Oliver, Stephen Colbert, RuPaul, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Madonna, and the cast of “West Wing,” or Media Matters, the Center for American Progress, Mother Jones, Slate, Salon, DailyKos, RawStory, The Progressive, AlterNet, or any of the other leftist stars and outlets and non-profits that cast Hillary as our ONLY choice (while also staying mum about the vast election theft whereby she seized the nomination).

And if they’re silent now, with Donald Trump ascending to the throne BECAUSE of the corruption of our voting system, will they stay silent as we all approach the next election (if any)? Or will they now finally face the fact that the United States is not a real electoral democracy, and help us fight to make it one at last?

Michael Moore’s on “Morning Joe” is at MSNBC 11-11-2016 07.42.43

MCM


Exit Polls from November 8 Election Show Patterns Indicating Possible Electronic Election Rigging in Favor of Republicans

 By Jonathan Simon

Presidential Race and Senate Races Show Suspicious Pattern

All over the world, exit polls are considered to be the gold standard in detecting the presence of election rigging. When the votecounts and the exit poll results are very different, it’s an indication that the vote counts may be wrong. It’s not proof of election fraud, but it does mean the election should be investigated.
A discrepancy between votecounts and exit poll results is exactly what we’re seeing in the November 8 election. You can see the comparison at the links below.

 

In the images at the links, the right hand column lists the percentage of shift from Clinton to Trump in the Presidential race, and from Democrat to Republican in Senate races. We call a shift towards Republicans a “red shift,” and a shift toward Democratic candidates a “blue shift.” We are seeing no blue shifts in this election.

Outcome-reversing shifts are highlighted in red.

This is a familiar pattern, indicative of electronic rigging, but in this case even more dramatic than usual. With all that has been said and written about the vulnerability of the computers that count our votes in secret, one must ask why these votes and states shifted? And why the outcome-changing results are simply accepted as accurate and honest.

There is every reason to investigate and then recount key states by hand where possible. This is too often not possible, because some of these results come from paperless, touchscreen computers.

And even where possible, with optical scanners, it is just not done.
Is it a patriotic service to our country — and the world — to passively and quietly accept the results from this election without review or inquiry? Let’s take responsibility and investigate where the evidence gathered places the validity of these results in doubt.

Where did this data come from?

The exit poll numbers are transcribed from screen captures of time-stamped CNN exit polls. Immediately after the polls close on election night, these figures were posted at the CNN website and other media websites.

The votecounts in most of the states in these tables are near 100% reporting, though some will have to be updated as remaining votes are tabulated. The red shift numbers may therefore change slightly by the time the final counts are available, but the general pattern is well established.

After the initial posting, exit poll totals are adjusted to match the votecounts. If you visit the CNN website now, it is the adjusted exit poll numbers you’ll see displayed there.

The role of exit polls in fair elections is discussed in depth in my book, Code Red: Electronic Election Theft and the New American Century. View on Amazon

I call on County Election Directors, Secretaries of State, the United States Congress, and President Obama to initiate an investigation into the outcome of the 2016 election.

 

READ MORE: 


Forbidden Bookshelf

Forbidden Bookshelf




“While We Were Sleeping”

While We Were Sleeping is an urgent call to save Greenwich Village from New York University's uncontrolled expansion.

Click here to donate to NYUFASP and receive a copy of "While We Were Sleeping: NYU and the Destruction of New York" (minimum donation to receive a book is $10 plus $8 shipping).

Orwell Rolls In His Grave, featuring MCM – Buy the DVD



About News From Underground

News From Underground is a daily e-news service run by Mark Crispin Miller, a Professor of Culture and Communication at NYU. It is based on his belief that academics, like reporters, have a civic obligation to help keep the people well-informed, so that American democracy might finally work.

If you'd like to receive updates delivered to your inbox daily, sign up for News From Underground Alerts:

Help News From Underground!





Message from Mark: "I am a one-man operation, although assisted greatly by some volunteers, and, now and then, by people paid by others for one-time projects. There is no shortage of skilled, dedicated folks out there who want to help me. There is, however, nothing I can pay them with, unless you decide you can contribute something."

Please donate via the PayPal button above or via PayPal by email to: markcrispinmiller@gmail.com

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Popular Posts

Blogroll

Need a bigger font size?




Sponsored Links



  • Your link could be here too, contact us for pricing details.