Fox News Eric Shawn Needs Prod Investigate Vote Fraud

Apparently, only the Fox News network has spots nearly every hour on the hour highlighting voter fraud allegations around the country.

During one segment, Bucks County Pennsylvania was noted for a bulk of hundreds of suspicious absentee voter applications being set aside as rejected.

The news during the spot was a mere one-liner, citing the Bucks County situation as one among a handful of other situations occurring in early voting in other states.

Eric Shawn reported similarly as is contained in his blog:

Absentee Voter Fraud Allegations Again?
Eric Shawn October 27, 2010

...In Pennsylvania, in the Eighth Congressional District of Bucks County, authorities tell us more than 500 absentee ballot applications are allegedly fraudulent.

Voters in sworn statements say someone made up excuses for why they needed absentee ballots, and they claim they never signed for them. Some, they say, include fabricated excuses for why they supposedly needed absentee ballots, such as citing "travel," when the voter had no plans to go anywhere


Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/10/27/absentee-voter-fraud-allegationsagain-0#ixzz13fIWybi9

But the Bucks County fraud needs further spotlight on it because right in one Pennsylvania report on what happened is this gem:

Pa. county tosses over 600 absentee applications
Election officials in a southeastern Pennsylvania county have rejected several hundred absentee ballot applications because of mismatching signatures and other problems.

http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101026/NEWS90/101029823/-1/NEWS

"Mismatching signatures."

Let us say this, if there are mismatching signatures there in Bucks County, there are mismatching signatures in every county in Pennsylvania.

In some cases there is no signature in the district poll book to compare. We wonder what is done in the case or rather in all cases wherein a voter shows up at the polls has an id for the name of the voter in the pollbook for the precinct but the pollbook does not contain a signature to match?

We wonder, but does Fox News wonder - does Eric Shawn wonder - what could possibly be going on since one of the reasons election officials rejected the absentee ballot applications was mismatching signatures.

But there is obviously more, according to a WHYY.org report...

Number of rejected absentee ballot applications up in Bucks
Tuesday, October 26th, 2010
With just a week to go until the Nov. 2 election, Bucks County voting officials say they've rejected more applications for absentee ballots than in past years.

Deena Dean, director of the Board of Elections and Voter Registration for Bucks County, said of the just over 11,000 absentee ballot applications that have come in, more than 600 have been rejected.

"There's various reasons that they're being rejected. Some of them include that the signature does not match, birth date does not match, they've failed to complete the application, possibly sign it," said Dean. "There's many different variations of reasons."

http://whyy.org/cms/news/government-politics/2010/10/26/number-of-rejected-absentee-ballot-applications-up-in-bucks/49250

"birth date does not match"

So the birth date on an application for an absentee ballot does not match that of the name listed on the voter registry book supposed to be maintained by the county (with help from the state database of voters known with the acronym SURE)

Fox, Eric Shawn, where is your inquisitivesness here?


We find it too bad really too bad the Fox News network does not itself hire a string of people to fan out in each of the suspected cases of fraud and actually begin a full investigation which would be independent of what the state or local governments might conduct.

Odds are state/local governments won't do squat before the actual date scheduled for the election at the "polling place."

In our opinion situations like what happened in Bucks County are merely the tip of the iceberg so to speak.

Ineligible voters, missing signatures in county registry books, names of deceased, that and more could be swept out of sight because there is no full review of all names on local voter registries across the state.

Every so often we do hear of names of deceased, for instance, being used to sign nomination petititons, yet even those are very rarely caught unless a political opponent deems it advantageous to formally challenge nomination petititions.

Pennsylvania needs an overhaul of its state database as well, but that will simply not happen because nobody from the outside looking in - like the Fox News Network - Eric Shawn - is willing to conduct an in-depth investigation of how the database could indeed contain names of voters who are ineligible to vote in the state of Pennsylvania. Or anywhere else for that matter.

Come on over here, Fox News and Eric Shawn. You've highlighted voter fraud allegations in our neck of the woods, Bucks County, go from there to the heart of voter fraud contained in the local voter registries of our state.

Even one, just one, ineligible name on the voter rolls for a precinct is clearly an invitation for fraud.

Let's end that this next year with Eric Shawn leading the investigation.

We will volunteer our time.

Net the Truth Online

The Bucks County situation gets curiouser and curiouser

Bucks board of elections extends absentee voting
TEXT SIZE By: Peter Hall
phillyBurbs.com

http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/courier_times/courier_local_elections/courier_local_elections_details/article/2948/2010/october/29/bucks-board-of-elections-extends-absentee-voting.html

Iowa Caucus Watch Vote Scam in Progress

The Iowa caucus process was smooth, wouldn't all agree. No automated electronic voting machines were used to vote. By my watch, CNN and Fox News networks called Huckabee the winner virtually simultaneously at 8:56 PM!

Around 9:29 Obama was declared the winner by Fox News. Switch to CNN same, with vote total by Obama's name = 580 votes!

That's right. Obama called the winner with 580 votes and Huckabee called the winner with 14,045.

Fascinating to watch the newscasters looking at the percentages and the results in real time they had to keep checking and inquiring were these from the "entrance" polling stats or the raw vote totals, they would pose the question aloud.

Can you believe it? Of course, the results later on in the evening increased in numbers.

But the important point is the winners had already been declared quickly and according to the news reporters based on their information from entrance results and raw vote numbers.

ABC news also kept the rundown going in real time. And posted the results simultaneously to the cable networks.

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/state?state=IA

Discussion also centered on the huge increase in first time caucus goers. Doesn't that raise anyone's eyebrows? According to one reporter, first timers for the Democrats were some 56 percent.

In addition, the process there included new registration right then on the spot. An Independent registered voter could walk in and declare himself a Democrat. A Republican registered voter could walk in and declare herself a Democrat.

Then there's the requirement of "viability" in the caucus room. A candidate had to mount at least 15 percent or face exclusion.

It really does seem as if it was a Party Game. Almost like musical chairs.

Who knows who really won in Iowa anyway?

Js throws in some numbers about the Republican voter turnout. It would be interesting to determine whether there may have been an actual decline in registered Republicans who showed up and then actually voted as a Democrat for purposes of skewing the Democrat results. In other words, if there was a higher percentage than in the past of Republicans who arrived to vote, and 70 percent or more were evangelicals, there may have been some jockeying going on to influence the Democrat caucus with party switches.

Also, how was there any control over who registered to vote that evening? Given the Motor Voter Act and the hesitancy to ask anybody for proof of voter residency or citizenship status when voting it's possible the increases in voter turnout weren't even pre-registered Iowa voters.

The likelihood for election fraud being committed in the reporting of votes cannot go unnoticed either.

Declared winner with less votes than people watching reruns of the X-Files that night - doesn't say much for that process.

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/01/iowa-caucus-watch-vote-scam-in-progress.html

Update Numbers available across the internet

By 8:56 PM CNN called Huckabee the clear winner of the Iowa Caucus... that was fast. Maybe voting without the electronic voting machines and in small groups, works. Hmmm. The registration system has to be tightened, though...

Fox News calls winner of Democrat Caucus Barack Obama with what 580 votes? 9:29 PM

CNN calls Barack Obama the winner.

Net the Truth Online

Looks like they are all getting the same numbers from somewhere.

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/state?state=IA

Democratic Primary ResultsThursday, January 3
Real-time Race Results: Updated January 3, 2008 - 9:30 PM (all times Eastern Standard)
Precincts Reporting 75%
Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates Projected Winner
Obama 618 36% 0 Winner
Edwards 530 31% 0
Clinton 527 30% 0
Richardson 33 2% 0
Biden 17 1% 0
Dodd 1 0% 0
Gravel 0 0% 0
Kucinich 0 0% 0
.
Estimated Delegates: 40Republican Primary ResultsThursday, January 3
Real-time Race Results: Updated January 3, 2008 - 9:11 PM (all times Eastern Standard)
Precincts Reporting 40%
Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates Projected Winner
Huckabee 14,045 31% 0 Winner
Romney 10,084 23% 0
Thompson 5,950 13% 0
McCain 5,194 12% 0
Giuliani 4,901 11% 0
Paul 4,379 10% 0
Hunter 168 0% 0

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/state?state=IA

Isn't this the silliest way to conduct selection of political party candidates? The entire system is ripe for election and voter fraud and abuse.

The morning guest on Fox 'n Friends noted individuals can actually show up at the door, doors open at 7 PM, and register of one political party or the other.

Guess one does have to show they are a resident of the state, but maybe not due to the federal imposed Motor Voter Act and all the controversy over illegal aliens having to prove they are citizens before obtaining a driver's license.

so hey, anybody from any state can make the trek to Iowa, say they are planning to reside in Iowa, in the process of moving, choose an apartment address, (maybe just fork over a month's deposit, or maybe simply obtain a post office mail box), and show up at the caucus.

Then, at the caucus participants actually get to vote more than once. That's right. If candidates don't get at least 15 percent of the gathered votes, they are out of contention. The voters present get to vote again, for another choice.

Unbelievable.

Update 7 PM EST: And the vote fraud begins. Caucus goers are arriving. Republicans will take a straw poll, says Wolf Blitzer on CNN's live broadcasting.

Democrats do things a bit differently. We won't get raw vote totals, they only use the percentages, says Blitzer, unaffected by what that might mean.

Oh such fun. No wonder Black Box Voting is hopping.

Who will tabulate the party caucus results? BBV discusses in depth.

It's meaningless, though, isn't it. Independents can show up and register as one or the other, and have a say in the selection.

And according to CNN, a registered member of a party can show up and change party registration right there on the spot, thus voting for a candidate of the other party.

Oh that should put a twist in things.

What a game. Not only that. The candidates have strategized should it appear they are not going to get this viable 15 percent, they are telling their supporters in the caucus to support an opponent, one they think they can beat in the next state, and the next.

Again, silliest way to conduct an election.

CNN reporter is noting that over 50 percent of the Democrats who showed up are new caucus goers.

Fox News noted in a chart the number at 56 percent first time caucus goers.

Well, what did we speculate. Are they actually residents of Iowa?

Fox News is having fun determing which election ticker chart is the Republican Straw Poll, which chart is the raw actual vote, which chart is real numbers.

Really, nobody will know anything for sure at the end of this weird process.

Juan williams on Fox News stating that Iowa is 95 percent white residents.

It will be interesting to find out if the number of registered voters, and the projected turnout, equal the number of voters who actually voted during this process.

Net the Truth Online

Real Clear Politics people were featured on Fox News coverage

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

CNN Transcripts galore

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2008.01.03.html

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/sitroom.html

Black Box Voting Forum Discussion on Iowa Caucus

In Iowa, neither party has been releasing the precinct results that provide the underlying verification for the totals they announce -- a procedure so top-heavy it should come with a laugh track. Black Box Voting and many Iowa citizens have been expressing concern, and urging the release of the data for the 1,900 precincts to back up the announced total.

While it's true that each precinct vote result assigns delegates according to the vote, and those delegates go to a county convention to cast votes (though this is nonbinding), in fact the delegate votes never match the original caucus results, because the county convention is held months after the caucus, and in 2008 will take place after Super Duper Tuesday. Many candidates drop out by the time the convention rolls around, and votes are readjusted.

Caucuses are not subject to freedom of information through public records, because technically the parties are private corporations and do not have to release their documents. Therefore, the caucuses have some built-in impediments to transparency.

Black Box Voting has been raising questions and seeking answers. We've been mailing letters to our Iowa constituents, blogging, and distributing questions and concerns through the voting rights circuitry.

Here's what we've learned so far, revealing some good news and citizen action still needed to prod one of the parties into publicly accounting for its results.

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/71028.html?1199244110

Black Box Voting Watch Reports



1-3-08: What to do! Iowa Caucus instructions for everyone
You don't live in Iowa? Doesn't matter. Pitch in!

IF YOU ARE NOT IN IOWA: During the event: Monitor Democratic Web site http://www.iowacaucusreults.com and capture screen shots at regular intervals. Republican county results will be posted at http://www.iowagop.net -THIS JUST IN: Republican precinct results will be posted at end of the night. Observe whether there are any results that go up or down or change after they have been posted.

If you spot anomalies, propagate documentation (like screen shots) to 3-5 places (relevant web sites, appropriate email lists).

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/71119.html?1199404367

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/71105.html?1199386745

DISCUSSION AREA
Iowa forums at Black Box Voting

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/143/143.html

Useful Info Iowa Caucuses

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/143/143.html

Basic facts on the Iowa Caucuses
Associated Press

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080102/ap_on_el_pr/iowa_caucuses_q_a

Previewing the Iowa Caucuses
Christopher C. Hull
Author, "Grassroots Rules: How the Iowa Caucus Helps Elect American Presidents"
Thursday, January 3, 2008; 11:00 AM

Former majority staff director of the Iowa Senate Christopher C. Hull, who recently wrote " Grassroots Rules: How the Iowa Caucus Helps Elect American Presidents," was online Thursday, Jan. 3 at 11 a.m. ET from Iowa to answer readers' questions about the caucuses, how they work, and how he sees them playing out Thursday night.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/12/27/DI2007122702055.html

Op-Ed Columnist
The Slice of the Sliver Speaks
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: January 3, 2008

As the presidential candidates tell them every single day, Iowans deserve to be the nation’s kingmakers because they are exceptional citizens who take their responsibilities very, very seriously. So tonight, even though it’s very cold — even though it’s Hokies vs. Jayhawks in the Orange Bowl — the sturdy Iowa voters will pull on their parkas and go out to fulfill their historic destiny. Perhaps as many as 15 percent of them!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/opinion/03collins.html?ex=1357102800&en=b022adc78a540174&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

TailRank Forum

http://tailrank.com/4477491/The-Slice-of-the-Sliver-Speaks

David Dill on paper ballots and hand counts

http://www.american.edu/ia/cfer/0418test/dill.pdf

Comments used in Chester County recount case

Big hopes to upset a tiny lead in ChescoThe GOP is almost certain to challenge the hair's-breadth margin - 0.1% - Democrats hold in the 156th District.
By Carrie Budoff Inquirer Staff Writer

excerpt

The 156th District, which encircles West Chester, has become the focal point of a statewide power struggle over the House of Representatives.

Royer came out of Election Day with a 19-vote lead, but a subsequent count of absentee ballots threw the edge to Smith. The outcome of this one race has left the 203-member chamber in limbo, with Republicans urging caution and Democrats claiming House control for the first time in 12 years.

A Chester County Court judge will decide whether to grant a recount and how it would be performed once Republicans - as they said they would - file a recount request by tomorrow's deadline.

While election experts agree a recount should be done, they disagree over which method - counting the paper ballots by hand or by machine - would be more accurate.

Ansolabehere favors a machine count, citing the likelihood of human error that comes with a manual review. "I know computer scientists love hand-counted paper. Go with the optical scanners."

David L. Dill, a computer science professor at Stanford University and founder of VerifiedVoting.org, a nonpartisan advocacy group, said he prefers a human count.

"You want to go slowly and carefully; you have multiple people watching it," he said. "You are only counting one race on the ballot. The careful hand count takes longer and takes more effort but will be much more accurate."

The number of "undervotes" - instances where voters didn't make a selection in the race, but did make choices in other contests - serves as a barometer for possible counting problems. There were 273 undervotes, or about 1 percent of the total.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/16164903.htm

discussions

David Dill responds on BBV forum

Posted on Friday, January 20, 2006 - 06:12 pm:

More

Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 03:07 pm:

I don't think that means we should eliminate machines. There is a significant part of the activist component that believes we should go back to all hand counting. That's ok in theory, and even in practice in rural areas in the U.S., but it has several problems. One is that it ALSO requires careful procedures and lots of auditing, because those human counters can make mistakes and cheat. Some people have proposed hand counting all the ballots at the polling places right after the close of the election. It would be HARD to mobilize enough observers to watch this process at every precinct! Also, it seems to be a tough sell. Finally, it doesn't seem BETTER than optical scan with extensive auditing, which seems to me to have a much better chance of working out...

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/73/17084.html

do not miss this discussion

http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/15595.html

Just the kind of stuff we need to know - who is who?

Among computer scientists who have achieved renown in the voting integrity movement, in general, the following scientists are against crypto:

Dr. Rebecca Mercuri
Dr. Barbara Simons (at least last time I talked to her about it, which was in August).
Dr. Herbert Thompson (at least, last time I talked to him about VoteHere, which was in a cab in Washington D.C. in late September)

Those who have been for the crypto solution:
Dr. David Dill
Dr. Avi Rubin
Dr. David Jefferson
Dr. David Chaum (has his own crypto solution, a company called Votegrity)

However, Drs. Dill, Rubin and Jefferson who have been favorable to VoteHere in the past say it is NOT ready for prime time now.

One more question: Has anyone heard of a crypto solution combined with mail-in ballots? That may be in the works, and I'd like to find out more about it.

(Message edited by Bev_Harris on January 10, 2005)

David Dill responds in his first post on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 04:33 pm:

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/72/1948.html?1122526050

More from Kim Alexander

http://www.calvoter.org/news/blog/2005_05_01_blogarchive.html


http://www.google.com/search?q=david+dill+careful+hand+count&hl=en&sourceid=gd&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2006-40,GGLD:en

Net the Truth Online: A destiny

Authors Marian Salzman and Ira Matathia highlight the future in their book NEXT NOW, on Fox 'n Friends early this morning. Then the trio of Fox anchors, including Kiera and Alyson, and Brian Kilmeade were on to Rosie vs Trump... then they were on to Senator John Kerry...

Depressing stuff, Next Now authors revealed... terrorism grows in USA... global warming is here to stay...

Yep, my ears picked up on the prediction "global warming is here to stay" since finding just yesterday Ronald Bailey, who for decades wrote about the global warming over-the-edge-of-reason hype, penned EcoScam and edited Global Warming and Other Eco Myths How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death, totally reversed his opinion on global warming.

In We're All Global Warmers Now
Reconciling temperature trends that are all over the place August 11, 2005, Ron Bailey announces:

"Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up..."

People who have doubted predictions of catastrophic global warming (and that includes me) "...

If the likes of Bailey can admit he's been wrong on global warming, what is next? Will we be able to discover all the truth - on the internet?

Since nobody else is doing this, we will.

Compare after Bailey's "epiphany," conversion to what has been called a religious movement...

http://www.reason.com/search/?terms=ronald+bailey+global+warming&submit=Go

and before his conversion

Rush to Judgment Ronald Bailey | April 2000

http://www.reason.com/news/show/27654.html

Back to the future, for now. As we are on a need to know everything about everything before we kick off this third planet from the sun, well, we need to review the future, in the present.

7 years from now, 70 years from now... why worry about today when we can worry about tomorrow.

Happy New Year 2077!

Actually, why worry about today, or tomorrow, or the year 2700?

Will have to make a trek to the library to reserve NEXT NOW.

In the meantime, check out the status of Google's book print project (see Googlepedia,) Google's massivedigitalized texts online project .

This post is a highlight of those issues of particular interest to Net the Truth Online into the future:

For posts concerning any of these topics, please conduct a search using the blogger feature at the top left corner of the site.

is the USA a republic or a democracy and why does it matter (this is not mere semantics - the difference matters)

global warming theory (despite Ron Bailey's reversal, skeptics remain, see those posting to Bailey's 2006 column: Global Warming Data Sets Reconciled Ronald Bailey May 3, 2006, 10:44am)

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/113722.html

the most astonishing statement to be made in the exchanges is one made by Bailey in response to Matt:

Matt L | May 3, 2006, 11:14am | #

From the NOAA press release...

One issue does remain however, and that is related to the rates of warming in the tropics. Here, models and theory predict an amplification of surface warming higher in the atmosphere. However, this greater warming aloft is not evident in three of the five observational data sets used in the report. Whether this is a result of uncertainties in the observed data, flaws in climate models, or a combination of these is not yet known. Using the evidence available, the author team favors the first explanation.

So since the data doesn't support their models, the data is wrong, not the models? Is that what they are saying?

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/113722.html

Ron Bailey May 3, 2006, 11:20am | #

Matt: I believe that they are inclined that way because as new data from the polar and temperate portions of the globle came in and was corrected, they tended to become consistent with the models. The majority of the NOAA panel obviously expects the same thing to happen with tropical temperatures--we'll see if they're right. Still, you ask a great question.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/113722.html

Doesn't Bailey realize he's used the same terminology that clarifies nothing.

tended to become consistent?

NOAA panel obviously expects the same thing to happen?

we'll see if they're right?

Bob Carter writes: There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 by Bob Carter Filed: 09/04/2006)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

So that issue will continue to be pursued here.

natural hormone replacement (bioidenticals vs synthetic hormone replacement therapy)

electronic voting machines voter verified paper audit trail (malfunctions vs human error)

voter identification card (privacy concerns vs fraud prevention)

NAFTA superhighway (details hidden)

Article V Constitutional Convention

one world order/one world government

9/11 official government conspiracy theoryvs 9/11 truth movement, 9/11 scholars, conspiracy theorists

illegal immigration and Hazleton, Pennsylvania's sovereignty (status lawsuit/resolution)

danger Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention 2007 and beyond

Pennsylvania Keystone Opportunity Zones (how are KOZs constitutional?) related issues including eminent domain

autism and thimerisol controversy health related issues men, women, and our precious children

get the US out of the UN (John Birch Society, World Net Daily)

is the gifted program rigged?

what does No Child Left Behind Act have to do with public education?

will Americans remember the No Child Left Behind Act was unveiled by George W. Bush during his Florida trip to the Booker Elementary School September 11, 2001?

does the Patriot Act apply to US citizenswhen it was supposed to apply to foreign terrorists

The reason Net the Truth Online continues is because of a personal obsessiveness to find truth, and a mission to share findings with readers like you. You want to know, we want to know as much as possible that is factual and true.

Fox 'n Friends chatting now, not about Next Now... John Kerry eats alone in Iraq??

"tell us the true story," says Brian Kilmeade...

Exactly!

Kilmeade gets immediate response to his query... emails from a father whose son is in Iraq... confirms Kerry ate alone, only two reporters showed up for a press conference...

"We only want to know the truth," says Kilmeade.

Hey that's what Net the Truth Online unabashedly wants for the new year, and beyond...

Truth in 2007... drink a cup of green tea to that (subliminal suggestion)

For more information on this issue use the search feature on this site located at the top left corner

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=global+warming