I have obtained the information that finally explains how the Senate election scam in Mass was pulled off.
The quoted "turnout" percentages are the sum of COUNTED votes divided by the number of registered voters times 100 (to make it a percentage) Therefore the "turnout" actually includes the cast votes were discarded without being counted.

How did the optical scanners that are now all owned by the Republicans perform compared with hand counting?
No surprises, they flipped the Coakley and Brown totals. The figures are eerie for their obviousness. I didn't round the figures, I worked from the raw data. Those trailing zeroes are real.

Count method Brown % Coakley % Libertarian % C/O to B/McC ratio (1) "Turnout" (2)
___________________________________________

Republican owned counting machines 52.00 47.02 0.98 52.76 58.80

Hand counted 47.00 51.78 1.22 59.31 60.31

Independently owned counting machines (3) 49.32 50.01 0.67 61.61 70.00

Levers 65.08 33.59 1.33 44.64 50.00


(1) If the Coakley votes are expressed as a proportion of Obama's votes, and Brown's as a proportion of McCain's votes, and the ratio of these figures is calculated, it should be roughly constant since there is no reason for this ratio to change. I also calculated the relationships between Brown's votes on each equipment type and the votes for Barr/Baldwin, and the relationship between Coakley's votes and McKinney/Nader. The variation in these confirms that the Coakley/Brown figures were flipped on the Republican machines, and that Coakley's votes were undercounted on the lever machines.

(2) 100% - turnout % = the combined none voting number (reasonably constant unless suppressed) plus the uncounted votes cast.

(3) Used in only in Milton - acts as cross check by being very similar to the hand count result.

The lever machines were shimmed in favor of Brown by discarding about 8% of the votes cast for Coakley. The person that rigged those machines forgot that the third party candidate total would increase as a percentage of the total count under a three candidate scenario. Can we cross check this? Yes - the alleged turnout (which actually measures turnout minus the uncounted votes that were cast) is below the predicted percentages. The lever figures are easily detected as false because the person who 'fixed' them went way over the top on some machines. See Southbridge for example - 34% turnout (That shows how many uncounted Coakley votes were trimmed) and Coakley only getting 42% while Obama got 65% of the vote in 2008? These figures, combined with the third party 'surge' to almost 3% is an outlier that discloses the magnitude of skimming Coakley's votes.

In NC, carpet bagger Libby Dole is running an attack ad against Kay Hagan that casts her as an atheist. This is a weird claim in view of Hagan's strong religious faith and the fact that she is.... a sunday school teacher!

Dole is best known for her failure to demand screening of blood donations for the HIV virus when she was in charge of the Red Cross. Her attack is based on Hagan having received some money from Godless Americans PAC (GAPAC)

This group represents the nation’s diverse community of Atheists, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and others who do not embrace religious creeds to demand:

"... their full recognition as American citizens."

It seems that Dole is not only opposed to civil rights for people who are not part of the Church of America but that she thinks that anyone who has been in the same room as such heathens is unfit to serve in the Senate. This sounds suspiciously like a "religious test" for office. One wonders if Dole would be attacking Hagan if she had received donations from groups demanding "full recognition as American citizens" for ANY other group?

McCain’s Temper Caused the Keating Five Scandal

By Faun Otter

John McCain believes that his actions in the Keating scandal were probably the worst thing he has ever done and “will probably be on my tombstone.” (1) So why has the press hardly mentioned this outrageous behavior?

Maybe they don’t think anyone cares that McCain accepted bribes and knowingly broke the law as a result of one of his famous temper tantrums.

Here’s what you need to know about McCain’s Keating Five scandal. (2)

Charles Keating helped McCain’s father-in-law buy McCain his seat in congress in 1982. Keating and Cindy McCain were partners in a shopping mall venture which McCain only cashed out (at a million dollar profit) when Keating was jailed in the late 1990s. (3) Keating was obsessed with obliterating pornography while he was using his corporation’s money for wild drunken parties, at least one of which McCain attended.

McCain hid from Congress that he had taken 9 trips on Keating’s jet. These included three vacations at Keating’s mansion on Cat Cay in the Bahamas that McCain and his wife shared with Charlie Keating and his family. McCain got more money than any of the other four politicians at the heart of the Keating scandal. When asked if he was buying or influencing McCain with his gifts and money, Keating replied, “I want to say in the most forceful way I can, I certainly hope so!”

Charlie Keating was running a series of shell corporations to hide cash he moved illegally from Lincoln Savings and Loan. Lincoln became the largest S & L to collapse and cost US taxpayers thousands of millions of dollars for a bail out. When Federal bank regulators, led by Ed Gray, tried to limit Keating’s worst excesses, Keating sent a letter to McCain describing the bank board (FHLBB) as a police state under a mad dog’s leadership.

And then McCain had one of his melt downs.

This was the key moment in McCain’s Keating Five scandal and it occurred at March 19 1987.

Keating asked McCain to pressure bank auditors not to enforce the law against Lincoln S&L. McCain told Keating he was uncomfortable strong arming the nation’s financial regulators. Keating taunted him, “McCain’s a wimp.” At 1:30, in his senate office, McCain exploded into fury, “One thing I’m not is a coward.” McCain screamed at Keating that he hadn’t lived in a box for five years to have his courage questioned. McCain’s aides were very surprised by McCain’s tantrum and even Keating begged him to calm down.

McCain didn’t back off. He shouted that he knew it was not appropriate for him to negotiate on Keating’s behalf with regulators who were looking into the illegal activities at Lincoln Savings and Loan. Keating told McCain that he should not bother going to the meeting. McCain was still mad and replied, “No, I’m going to that meeting.”

Later that day, Keating boasted that he “knew how to get McCain’s attention.”

McCain met Ed Gray on April 2, 1987. Against all protocol, McCain didn’t allow Gray to bring any staff or attorneys to the meeting and also excluded his own aides. He later said this was because he wanted to be able to deny everything. McCain tried to force Gray to ignore a banking regulation that affected Keating’s Lincoln S&L. McCain kept referring to Keating as, “my friend.”

Seven days later, bank regulators were summoned to the Senate for an unusual late night meeting. McCain wanted the auditors to let Lincoln continue making real estate loans without carrying out credit checks, a clear violation of the law. This is also the practice that has led to the current US economic crisis. When asked by his aides about the meeting, McCain whistled through his teeth rather than answer their questions.

Here it is in a nut shell:
In 1987, McCain tried to force bank regulators to ignore the law for his friend and benefactor, Charlie Keating. McCain knew this was improper but plunged recklessly into the meetings after Keating taunted him for being a coward.

McCain almost destroyed his career by accepting bribes and letting mere words goad him into knowingly breaking the law.

If he was President, what else might McCain’s temper destroy?


(1) http://www.slate.com/id/1004633 /
(2) Extracted from Trust Me: Charles Keating and the Missing Billions by Michael Binstein and Charles Bowden, Random House 1993 http://tinyurl.com/3r25xs
(3) http://tinyurl.com/42vpx3

Refusing to have an abortion or persuading your unwed teen not to have an abortion are reasonable choices. However McCain-Palin are not reasonable and they don't want people to have reasonable choices. McCain-Bush-Palin want to pass laws that would result in compulsory pregnancies for many rape victims.

That sounds outrageous and it is.
But it is also true.

I have to say I'm unsurprised that Palin is ducking all questions with a mere 4 1/2 months until the moment she could become President. It is hard for her to answer how she justifies her policy of special rights for the children of rapists. So why not ask McCain? He is no maverick or moderate on abortion rights. McCain agrees with Bush, as on so many policies, that rapist's children should not be aborted by the rapist's victims

You might think that rape rarely leads to pregnancy. Think again.
There are an estimated 3,200 women become pregnant as a result of rapes each year in the US. McCain-Palin want to make it illegal for these victims to abort the rapist's off-spring.

Only 6% of all rapists spend anytime at all in jail for their actions. Is it fair on the traumatized victims of rape, over 3,000 American women every year, to have to go through with a pregnancy arising from the violent abuse of a rape? What does McCain propose doing with the rapist's children he is protecting? Will McCain add further insult and injury to the rape victims by forcing them to raise and care for the rapist's children? As always, this McCain-Bush social experiment has not been thought through beyond the dogma of "no abortions ever."

Policies have consequences; victims of sexual assault are 4 times more likely to contemplate suicide. The mental devastation of being raped and then forced by McCain to carry the rapist's child to term, with all the inherent health risks to the mother, can only be imagined. It is very likely to involve substantially increased suicide rates for rape victims.

I propose the policy of compulsory pregnancy for rape victims to be the worst McCain-Bush-Palin policy from their large collection of bad policies.

Rape statistics from:
http://www.rainn.org/statistics

McCain policy on compulsory pregnancy for rape victims:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/...

Palin policy on compulsory pregnancy for rape victims:
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/101906...

Palin, the CNP and Diebold are linked. Get ready for another stolen election.

Was Palin the price McCain had to pay to get the corrupt voting machine companies to support him?

Fact 1. Palin was not vetted by McCain but by the leaders of CNP

"Last week, while the media focused almost obsessively on the DNC's spectacle in Denver, the country's most influential conservatives met quietly at a hotel in downtown Minneapolis to get to know Sarah Palin. The assembled were members of the Council for National Policy, an ultra-secretive cabal that networks wealthy right-wing donors together with top conservative operatives to plan long-term movement strategy. CNP members have included Tony Perkins, James Dobson, Grover Norquist, Tim LaHaye and Paul Weyrich."

See: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmat...

Fact 2. Diebold are major financial backers of CNP candidates

In about 2002, I wrote an article where I listed donations from Diebold's executives, many made on the same day (!) to ultra right wing nutcase Senator Lough Faircloth of NC. I have appended the list to this message but it only goes to about 2000, missing out the Wally O'Dell and Ken Blackwell scandals in Ohio.

Article at : http://www.bartcop.com/diebold.htm

Fact 3. CNP are Christian Reconstructionists and Christian Dominionists. These folks believe it's OK to rule over the earth, destroy its resources and kill the infidels. (that would be you and me) These people believe that Democracy is heresy - and they are supported by Diebold. Palin appears to be the bargaining chip for a stolen election.

See my article "Did God tell them to steal the votes" at:
http://www.bartcop.com/111402faun.htm

Christian Reconstructionists argue that it is the moral obligation of Christians to reclaim every "worldly" institution for Christ. Reconstructionism also holds that by stealing elections from heretics, they are actively carrying out God's will. They have a vision of a future totalitarian regime, in which only approved Christians would have full citizenship, the Bible would be the basis of all law, and many of us live as slaves.

CNP have a rule that, the media should not know when or where they meet or who takes part in their programs, before of after a meeting. (Reported in the NYT August 2004)

The following Source Watch listing will convince you of the bad people that make up this unpleasant group:
http://tinyurl.com/gs89

Another good article and links on CNP is at:
http://tinyurl.com/65e6yu

Michael J. Hillock
President, Diebold International
11/18/97 $500.00
FAIRCLOTH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE 1998

David Bucci
Senior Vice President, Customer Solutions Group
11/18/97 $500.00
FAIRCLOTH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE 1998

Warren W. Dettinger
Vice President, General Counsel and Assistant
Secretary
11/18/97 $300.00
FAIRCLOTH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE 1998

Donald E. Eagon, Jr.
Vice President, Global Communications & Investor
Relations
11/18/97 $300.00
FAIRCLOTH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE 1998


Larry D. Ingram
Vice President, Procurement and Services
11/18/97 $300.00
FAIRCLOTH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE 1998

Dennis M. Moriarty
Vice President, Customer Business Solutions
11/18/97 $300.00
FAIRCLOTH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE 1998

Anthony J. Rusciano
Vice President, National Accounts
11/18/97 $300.00
FAIRCLOTH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE 1998
--- Hey Tony! Listing yourself as "retired" and using
your vacation home address to avoid campaign donation
limits is a tad naughty don't you think?

Charles B. Scheurer
Vice President, Corporate Human Resources
11/18/97 $300.00
FAIRCLOTH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE 1998


Robert J. Warren
Vice President and Treasurer
11/18/97 $300.00
FAIRCLOTH FOR SENATE COMMITTEE 1998

John W. McCain in his own words.

..
"I would love to be emperor." (1)


"The fact is, (my involvement in the savings and loan crisis) was the wrong thing to do, and it'll be on my tombstone and deservedly so." (2)


"I ridiculed the bill on the floor of the Senate the day I voted for it." (3)


Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV? Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "You've stumped me." (4)


On AIDS prevention McCain: "I'm not very wise on it." (4)


At a recent meeting with the Wall Street Journal editorial board, Republican presidential candidate John McCain admitted he "doesn't really understand economics" (5)


"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." (6)


"...the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation." (7)


" I'll never forget that first Christmas when I gave--when I read from the Nativity story from the different Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John." (7)
(The nativity story does NOT appear in all the gospels)


"I cannot tell you that I've ever had a revelation from God--it's been kind of plotting." (7)


"Speaking of religions, I think the Greek god hubris played a role in Mr. Rumsfeld's decisions." (7)
(Does McCain believe in Greek gods? BTW Hubris wasn't a god. It means over-reaching arrogance)


"Thanks for the question, you little jerk. You're drafted." (8)


'The nice thing about Alzheimer's is you get to hide your own Easter eggs.' (9)


McCain speaking in Tucson referred to Leisure World as "Seizure World," the East Valley retirement community where, in the 1984 election, "97 percent of the people voted and the other 3 percent were in intensive care." (10)


"So our marriage is really based on a tissue of lies." (11)


Asked whether he's lectured his own children about using drugs, McCain replied, "I told my thirteen-year-old son I would beat him within an inch of his life." (12)


When asked why we have military personnel on food stamps- "Privates and seamen don't make campaign contributions." (12)


"You know, people talk about how bad the POW camp was in Vietnam, but really we had a lot of fun." (13)

___________________________

(1) www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/184211...
(2) www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/12/06/mc...
(3) www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/184204...
(4) www.rhrealitycheck.org/node/6610/print
(5) www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/21/short-on...
(6) www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalinte...
(7) www.beliefnet.com/story/220/story_22001_1....
(8) www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8REQ2D00...
(9) www.salon.com/people/col/reit/1999/09/02/r...
(10) www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/art...
(11) www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/art...
(12) www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/184211...
(13) www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/184204...

Here is my analysis of exit polls Vs. supposed ballot counts.

Method
Grab one site which lists the exit polls before they were "corrected.” Correction is the procedure by which the exit polls are retrofitted to match the figures provided by the vote counting machines. It is easily done by changing the exit poll results, such as the 2.00 a.m. flip-flop of the Nevada exit poll scores which was done without any change to the sample size.

A slightly less obvious sleight of hand is to alter the weighting. Weighting is the name for a multiplier used to correct sample subgroups to match the proportions in the whole of a state population. Thus an exit poll can be ‘corrected’ by saying something to the effect,
“Oh well, the vote results show we must have under sampled Republicans and therefore we’ll multiply that subgroup of the exit poll sample by 1.5 to make our results fit the figures the ballot counting machines are spitting out.”

Here is one list as an example of raw exit poll data:
http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=386

Then take a look at the results by state, such as on this chart:
http://news.yahoo.com/electionresults

There is a bit of math involved but don't worry, I taught market research at a University - a place where Republicans fear to tread, according to the media’s own polls! The Bush people argue that the exit polls are skewed by the methodology employed. It is odd that they don’t say what that error producing part of the methodology might be. A skew means a systematic error is introduced by the test protocol and causes a consistent shift in one direction.

IF this was true, then all the exit polls would show the same sort of shift from 'actual' results.

The GOP offer an alternative argument that the exit polls are not large enough samples and therefore the results are off by a large random error.

IF this was true, then the exit polls should scatter on either side of the actual result,, especially if the final result is close to 50/50.

What do we actually see when comparing exit polls with actual results?

There is skew - but ONLY in states which the Republicans had previously stated to be target states in play. The skew is in the same direction every time; that is to say in favor of Bush.

The exit poll results are not scattered about the mean as the alternative theory predicts. They are all on the Kerry side of the vote counts as issued by the states except for a hand full of states which hit amazingly close to the exit poll figures.

Here are the figures. They list the four contemporaneous and uncorrected exit polls. Kerry is listed first and Bush second in each pair of figures. Published = the figure presented as the vote count as of 10.00 a.m. EST on 11/3/04

AZ Poll one 45-55 Final 45-55 Published 44-55
CO Poll one 48-51 2nd 48-50 3rd 46-53 Published 46-53
LA Poll one 42-57 Final 43-56 Published 42-57
MI Poll one 51-48 Published 51-48 Published 51-48
IOWA Poll one 49-49 3rd 50-48 Final 49-49 Published 49-50
NM Poll one 50-48 2nd 50-48 3rd 50-48 Final 50-49 Published 49-50
ME 3rd 55-44 Published 53-45
NV: 3rd 48-49 Published 48-51
AR: 3rd 45-54 Published 45-54
MO Final 46-54 Published 46-53

These tracking polls were right where you would expect them to be and within the margin of error. However, if we look at some other states, the figures are beyond curious. either the exit polls were wrong or the vote count is wrong:

WI Poll one 52-48 3rd 51-46 Final 52-47 Published 50-49
PA Poll one 60-40 3rd 54-45 Final 53-46 Published 51-49
OH Poll one 52-48 2nd 50-49 3rd 50-49 Final 51-49 Published 49-51
FL Poll one 51-48 2nd 50-49 3rd 50-49 Final 51-49 Published 47-52
MINN Poll one 58-40 3rd 58-40 Final 54-44 Published 51-48
NH Poll one 57-41 3rd 58-41 Published 50-49
NC Poll one 3rd 49-51 Final 48-52 Published 43-56

Taking the figures and measuring the size and direction of the poll to supposed vote count discrepancy, we find:

WI Bush plus 4%
PA Bush plus 5%
OH Bush plus 4%
FL Bush plus 7%
MINN Bush plus 7%
NH Bush plus 15%
NC Bush plus 9%

Our election results appear to have been tampered with to give Bush some unearned electoral votes.

Again.

Faun