Tuesday, January 31, 2012

The Republican Presidential Nomination is Being Stolen! (Part 1)

     (This is part one of a two-part series on vote fraud and potential vote fraud in the Iowa caucuses, the New Hampshire primary and the South Carolina primary, all of which took place in January 2012.  Today, we report on Iowa and New Hampshire.  Tomorrow's article will treat probable vote fraud in South Carolina.)
     Beyond any reasonable doubt, the 2012 Republican nomination is being stolen from the American people. The law requires that the votes be cast in secret but counted in public. The reality is often quite another matter.
     In some cases, as with touch-screen voting, not even the individual voter knows how the machine records his vote; and then the actual vote count is concealed from the public. In other cases, according to sworn affidavit, the vote is counted honestly but recorded dishonestly,
     Let’s begin with part of the count in the Iowa caucuses.
     Edward L True attended the caucus in Washington Wells, Appanoose County, Iowa. His tally sheet showed the following vote totals: Bachman: 3, Perry: 13, Paul: 7, Huntsman: 1, Santorum: 21, Romney: 2, Gingrich: 6. Other participants would confirm to True that their vote tallies gave the same totals.
     Officials instructed the poll watchers not to share their vote tallies with anyone. They also said that there was no “rush” for the precinct to submit their totals.
     As it turned out, Romney was officially recorded as getting 22 votes from Washington Wells precinct. True testified that he called the county Republican Party chairman Lyle Brinegar to report the discrepancy. He gave Brinegar the telephone numbers of other observers and was told that the discrepancy would be corrected when the totals were certified “in about two weeks.”
     The correction, according to True, was never made. If the tally from one precinct was changed, tallies from the other precincts are suspect.
     The results of the caucuses were later changed in a recount to show that Santorum had won Iowa by 34 votes—29,839 to 29,834. The change may have come partly as a result of Edward True and others raising a legal stink about the count in his precinct. Nonetheless, we still have to wonder whether the count in Iowa’s 1,773 other precincts were correctly counted and whom an honest count would have shown to be the winner.  (link) 
     With paperless voting, there’s of course no paper trail to honestly and transparently certify election results. Anyone with access to the computer program that supposedly counts the votes can steal an election. Of this system, it has been said, “It’s not a door without locks; it’s a house without doors.” 
     In the 1996 article “A House without Doors: Vote Fraud in America,” James J. Condit, Jr., addressed the question, “Can you prove voter fraud?” Without a paper trail, voter fraud can’t be proven. More important, though, is that without a paper trail an honest vote count can’t be guaranteed. When the vote counters can’t guarantee an honest count, there’s something wrong with the system.
     How sure can we be that the vote in New Hampshire was honest? I was astonished to find how easy it was to answer that question. In New Hampshire, no identification is required. In the video below, a man named James O’Keefe, with a concealed camera, asks for ballots in both Democrat and Republican primaries. In each instance, he gives the names of New Hampshire residents who had died. According to O’Keefe, that would have been perfectly legal in the 2012 Republican presidential primary. 
      New Hampshire Attorney General Richard Head said that he had launched a comprehensive investigation of these allegations and, thus far, has found no evidence of this type of voter fraud. The news article, however, doesn’t raise the possibility that snowbirds—New England residents known reside in the American South during the winter—were impersonated by vote fraudsters. (link) 
     We also know that around 90% of New Hampshire’s ballots are cast via a form of gambling called e-voting. Their machines are programmed by a company that has already been found guilty of criminal behavior and convictions. (here)
In South Carolina it was worse. The usual suspects programmed 100% of the voting machines. (here)  That amounts to 100% faith-based voting.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Post a Comment