President Bush won November's election by 2.5% yet exit polls showed Kerry leading by 3%. Which was correct?

"There are statistical indications that a systematic, nationwide shift of 5.5% of the vote may have occurred, and that we'll never get to the bottom of this, unless we gather the data we need for mathematical analysis and open, robust scientific debate.", says Bruce O'Dell, USCountVotes' Vice President.

The study, “Response to Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004 Report”, was co-authored by a diverse group of professors and academicians specializing in statistics and mathematics affiliated with University of Notre Dame, University of Pennsylvania, University of Utah, Cornell University, University of Wisconsin, Southern Methodist University, Case Western Reserve University and Temple University. Their study does not support claims made by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International that exit poll errors were to blame for the unprecedented 5.5% discrepancy between exit polls and official 2004 election results.

On November 3, just hours after Democratic vice-presidential hopeful John Edwards made a national announcement that he and John Kerry were not going to concede until all the votes were counted, Kerry grabbed the spotlight and conceded -- before all the votes were counted.

Kerry took the money and ran. Seems he couldn't stick around because he and the missus were spending Christmas at a holiday extravaganza in Sun Valley as personal guests of California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who just weeks before had fired up the Republican Convention at Madison Square Garden by declaring that "America is safer with George W. Bush as president."

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "The former candidate, largely AWOL post-election, was seen in intense conversation with Dennis Miller."

It would be another two months before Kerry got around to emailing his millions of stunned, exhausted, and much poorer supporters to let them know that, although he was committed to "ensuring that every vote in this election is counted," alas, he wouldn't be joining the protest of the Ohio Electors.

In December, the Supreme Court opted not to hear the civil suit Clair Callan Vs. President George W. Bush. The plaintiff in the suit is a senior citizen and former Congressman from Nebraska. The case has slowly made its way through the lower courts, which have rejected it on the grounds that they have no jurisdiction to hear the suit, or that Mr. Callan does not have a lawful cause of action. The suit alleges that the president violated American law by invading Iraq. Specifically at issue is compliance with the War Powers Act.

In 1973, a post-Vietnam War Congress wanted to ensure that no future president could send troops into battle without just cause and congressional oversight. Consequently, it passed a law, known as the War Powers Act, which permits the president to introduce the military into combat “where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.” Congress was very determined that this requirement be met before sending troops overseas, as is evidenced by the fact that this verbiage appears in the act four times. The act further stipulates that the president has 60 days to obtain from Congress a

It is very rare to find a talk show host or writer writing a column basically urging readers to read the writings or opinions of other talk show hosts or writers. I am urging readers of this commentary to read the full text of “Is Wal-Mart a Person? Thom Hartmann Tells Why It Is--Kind of--But Not Really: A Buzzflash.com Interview”(http://www.buzzflash.com/
interviews/05/01/int05004.html).

I am posting a few passages for this long interview to give readers a brief taste of this excellent examination of the threat posed by dominant Corporate political, legal and economic power in the United States today. This interview gives the readers an excellent insight into the historical evolution of this extremely serious problem.

“……the Constitution by the addition of the Bill of Rights, which gave humans a huge club they could use to beat back government if it ever were to become oppressive.

After the November presidential election, as informal accounts of massive voting irregularities began to surface, Columbus citizens organized public hearings to document and investigate the reports. Some national organizations had huge amounts of documentation that were to be used for future litigation and public policy changes to effect changes for future election cycles, but not to respond to this one. Organizers felt there needed to be an immediate public conversation about our local and statewide election administration with democratic access to the evidence of voting irregularities; a place for ordinary people- not just lawyers- to respond to the situation. Over 750 Ohioans attended the hearings where sworn testimony was gathered from voters, poll watchers, election experts, and investigative journalists.

The public hearings kicked off a host of widespread challenges to local and statewide election administration, as well as a growing public response of outrage and demand for accountability. The goals of this campaign were to address investigate and document voting irregularities, demand a recount, hold