Stop Bush Now: Kerry will not Un-Concede

Does Kerry need more begging from Americans to un-concede? What more does he need than evidence showing "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the 2004 Election was "invalid".

Tuckahoe, NY (PRWEB) January 4, 2005 -- Does Kerry need more begging from Americans to un-concede? What more does he need than evidence showing "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the 2004 Election was "INVALID".

In his book, Stop Bush Now (ISBN 0-9760408-0-8, $10.95, July 2004;, author Paul J. Landis warned about the risks of not taking Bush and his "Republican Terrorists" at their word: there was ample evidence suggesting that the current administration would do whatever it has to retain the positions of power it illegally holds. They invited us to impeach them, and failing to do that, we received, as expected, another "invalid" Presidential election.

Bush and Cheney never agreed to a "valid" Election 2004. They "stole" Election 2000 with a variety of techniques including the purging of 50,000 Florida voters before the first vote was cast.

For four years, given a free ride by Democrats, they had full opportunity to refine and extend their arsenal of vote and voter stealing techniques. And, they got Congress to fund enough Electronic Voting machines so that they had 30% of the vote to "play" with. These machines, in addition to lacking a verifiable voting paper trail, were developed by companies loyal to Bush. This was helped, of course, by how ever many machines they had "call home" during the day. Election 2002 gave them the opportunity to test that "illegal" trick.

Kerry will not un-concede. Why should he?

Is he waiting for an invitation from Bush to help challenge the scores of Invalid events of Election 2004? Does he need more reports of votes for "Kerry" showing up on the screen as "Bush"?

The only "sane" remedy for Election 2004 is to declare it "invalid" and do it over, correctly, without un-tested, paper trail-less Republican "Terrorist" developed Electronic Voting Machines.

Kerry will not un-concede. Why should he?

Kerry did not have the political courage or moral fortitude to stand up to Bush and his "Republican Terrorists". He ran a naïve, un-courageous, unpatriotic and campaign that betrayed his office and our constitution.

He betrayed our soldiers forced to fight in Bush's lie: IRAQ. He betrayed his oath of office and lacked the political courage to stand up to Bush and the WMD lies and rescind his vote on IRAQ based upon that now well established fact.

Kerry will not un-concede. He hasn't learned how to spell "9/11" yet.

He needed to stop acting as if 9/11 never happened, for example, his first debate question from Jim Lehrer. Perhaps if he saw the documentary "911 in Plane Site" he would understand why Bush resisted having an investigation for 411 Days and he and Ms. Rice refused to testify under oath. Kerry is in violation of his oath of office to have allowed 411 days to go by without calling for a valid investigation of 9/11.

How about it, John?

Is there any thing more pathetic than America's future needing decisive action; when the preponderance of evidence cries out: "Un-Concede"; when our country clearly is under attack by "Republican Terrorists", and our would be president hides in the shadows, a coward?

Kerry will not un-concede.

"911 in plane site" is available at