liberal ["liberalis" L - suitable for a freeman, generous; "eleutheros" Gk - free] (adj) generous, open-minded, not subjugated to authoritarian domination; (n) one who believes in liberty, universal suffrage and the free exchange of ideas. elite ["eslire" Fr -- to choose fr.L "eligere" -- choose] (n) the choice part; best of a class; the socially superior part of society.

Thursday, December 02, 2004


These returns seem just as questionable -- if not more -- than the original, unofficial numbers. The returns on the provisionals are very very suspect, in my humble opinion.

I think the blogosphere is going to masticate these until at least Inauguration Day!

Meanwhile there's more from Madsen:

Special Report

Votergate: More details emerge
By Wayne Madsen Online Journal Contributing Writer

Does he make this stuff up as he goes along? It is so cloak and dagger!

This is the kind of quotation that challenges the credence of readers, but also stirs our imaginations:

New information obtained from knowledgeable U.S. intelligence sources reveal...

The thrust of the "Votergate" story is this:

The use of foreign nationals as election machine technicians on Election Day has also been confirmed. Sources with details of the vote rigging stated that some foreign nationals were involved in the reprogramming of Diebold and other machines in the four key states of Florida, Ohio, Texas, and California. The technicians successfully padded votes in Ohio to ensure that state's 20 electoral votes went to the Bush column. In populous counties in Florida, Texas, and California, the vote padding ensured that Bush's nationwide popular vote margin was well in excess of 3 million votes, giving him 51 percent of the national vote over John Kerry.

I suspect that this theory will be in circulation for decades, if not generations, and possibly never be fully disproven. Every few months or years some new, break-open evidence will surface. I believe it, but I don't think it will be possible to convince the American public. That is, unless a 5 star prosecutor like John Kerry can drag the witnesses into the light and compel the media to roll the cameras!

Brad Menfil

Cannonfire had written about "Brad Menfil" right after the election: "Brad Is At It Again: Vote Fraud"

Cannon says:

Bottom line: I think the guy's a fraud.

So why am I wasting space reprinting his current "revelations" about the election? Because I don't know with 100% certainty that he is a fraud. And even if he is, his scenarios are, if nothing else, interesting.

Here is Menfil's post on DU

Voter Fraud - Please Read My Explanation Below
27.Nov.2004 19:38
Brad Menfil

Brad Menfil is not my real name. I work for the RNC. I fear reprisals
if I'm found out.

The truth about this election is this: Florida and Ohio had to go for
Bush in order for him to "win" the election. In reality he lost both
states. In fact, he did not even win the popular vote. He lost the
national popular vote by at least 1,750,000. This shows you the scale
of the fraud.

The exit polls were not wrong. Kerry was the clear winner, but victory
was snatched from him.

Florida first. The 200,000+ margin of victory for Bush made this state
uncontestable. Everybody assumes that even with some fraud, Kerry could
never have made up the difference in a recount. But Kerry actually won
by about 750,000 votes. The numbers were changed by a computer program
(in both electronic and scan-tron voting systems) called "KerryLite."
"KerryLite" of course is not actual name of the program. The actual
name is 11-5-18-18 etc. For additional encryption, the numbers were
jumbled but I'm not sure in which order. The numbers replace the
letters of the alphabet. For example, K is the eleventh letter of the

So the if-then statement goes something like this: "if total true
Kerry>total true Bush, Bush x 1.04x (.04 is a random number)(total true
Kerry), total true Bush". The second part of the equation takes the
total number of votes cast and subtracts the new Bush total, subtracts
the third party totals and leaves the rest for Kerry.

Sometimes the program would also reduce third party votes and award
them to Bush. And even where Bush legitimately won, he was still
awarded additional votes. The big Democratic counties (Broward for
example) went to Kerry because it had to appear that everything was on
the up and up. It's interesting to see this unfold. Does anybody wonder
why the Republican counties were mostly counted after the Democratic
counties? You should wonder, and also know that this was no accident.
The Bush team had to make up the votes as the night went on.

In Ohio, computer voting fraud, vote tossing and voter suppression were
the main methods. Vote tossing was simply the removal of Kerry votes
and some third party votes. In some areas, the Bush vs. Kerry votes
were absurd. Nine to one, eight to two.

Voter suppression took the form of making voters stand in four hour
long lines. This of course took place in Democratic areas. The simplest
thing to do was to have too few voting machines. Sometimes that's all
it takes. People eventually lose patience and leave without casting a

In other states such as New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire,
Kerry's leads evaporated very quickly once the polls were shut down.
Kerry only won New Hampshire, but barely. As it turned out, the lead
was 6% for Kerry in that state and not enough fraudulent activity took
place to flip the state to Bush.

So this will all come out and be known to everyone. Nothing this
massive can be kept a secret. You're already beginning to see these
"irregularities" and the whisper will become a roar.

Hang in there!


Blogger liberal elite said...

check out the list of 20 amazing things at this guy's blog

5:37 PM


Post a Comment

<< Home