Fed Stimulus Funded Chertoff Group Full Body Scanners

Well there was a "shovel" ready project ready and able to be carried out with the federal stimulus money. Full of it, right.

And why no investigation of Michael Chertoff?

Net the Truth Online

Biochemist, Pilots, Passengers Backlash against Naked Body Scans
By Teresa Knudsen
Last Updated Nov 14, 2010, Published Nov 13, 2010


Body Scanners Deployment in Airports

After the failed bombing attempt on Christmas, former head of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, outlined his solution to possible similar bombing. Chertoff advised that the U. S. government purchase hundred of body scan machines from a company he now represents as CEO of the Chertoff Group.
Images
The U.S. government used funds marked to help Americans receive an economic stimulus, and instead placed machines and staff that require air passengers to surrender their 4th Amendment rights and endure a virtual strip search from machines that deliver an unknown radiation experiment. Then, the passengers can be groped on breasts and genital areas by Transportation Security Administration staff. The TSA is now groping men, women, tweens, children, toddlers and babies, as well as elderly people...

Read more at Suite101: Biochemist, Pilots, Passengers Backlash against Naked Body Scans http://www.suite101.com/content/biochemist-pilots-passengers-backlash-against-naked-body-scans-a308429#ixzz15YaqKPAx

Also note post by guest

James Babb & George Donnelly have started a campaign to protest the Naked Body Scanners. They will be joining Freedomizer Radio (http://www.freedomizerradio.com) today November 16th to talk about November 24th, which will be "National Opt Out Day" & why everyone flying on this day should Opt Out of going through the naked body scanner

Read more at Suite101: Biochemist, Pilots, Passengers Backlash against Naked Body Scans http://www.suite101.com/content/biochemist-pilots-passengers-backlash-against-naked-body-scans-a308429#ixzz15YjbQAJL

more

US Opt Out Day could cause widespread travel delays
by Jessica MCILHINNEY on November 16, 2010

Grassroots organisation ‘We Won’t Fly’ is encouraging US travellers to refuse full body scans at airports beginning next week, as several pro-consumer groups protest the use of such security measures.

As next week begins the busiest travel season of the year, widespread delays could be seen as travellers opt out of scans. November 24 has been designated by ‘We Won’t Fly’ as National Opt Out of the Airport Scanners Day in order to draw attention to the campaign against, what consumer groups, have called a threat to ‘health and privacy’.

http://www.cheaphotelbookings.com/news/us-opt-out-day-could-cause-widespread-travel-delays/31584.html

Glenn Beck Soros Focus Neglects Trilateralists

We don't know the facts and can never conduct the kind of research to find the facts concerning Glenn Beck's recent charges that when a teen and a Hungarian Jew himself, George Soros in some way sent Jews to their deaths...

Other quarters have raised concerns about Beck's facts in that regard, and we post those for informational purposes.

Libertarian Reason magazine joins growing chorus condeming Beck's Soros attacks November 14, 2010 4:59 pm ET by Justin Berrier

Beck's three-day attack on Jewish financier George Soros has been widely criticized by Jewish leaders, Holocaust survivors and, most recently, Commentary magazine which describes itself as "the flagship of neoconservatism." Critics have been particularly concerned with Beck's false smears related to Soros' actions as a 14-year-old Hungarian Jew during the Holocaust. Beck suggested that Soros was a Holocaust collaborator, even going so far as to suggest that Soros helped "send the Jews" to "death camps."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201011140010

We've viewed Beck's coverage the last few days, and found while the focus on Soros or anyone of his power is certainly welcome, Beck totally neglects more long-standing interconnections of powerful people with suspect goals such as those known as the Trilateralists.

Surely Beck's studies aren't so narrow as to leave out an entire line of inquiry that leads pretty conclusively to the likes of:

David Rockefeller
Zbigniew Brzezinski

The Trilateral Commission: Usurping Sovereignty
By Patrick Wood

http://www.augustreview.com/issues/globalization/the_trilateral_commission:_usurping_sovereignty_2007080373/#

We can't help but wonder why Glenn Beck has to date not made these powerhouses the focus of even a one-day inspection of interconnections and activities with a bent to not only trash the sovereignty of the United States as a "nation" but also create a new world order?

A quick review of the conclusion in The Trilateral Commission: Usurping Sovereignty
By Patrick Wood should have already been highlighted by Beck on his mission to provide information viewers can use.

Conclusion

It is clear that the Executive Branch of the U.S. was literally hijacked in 1976 by members of the Trilateral Commission, upon the election of President Jimmy Carter and Vice-President Walter Mondale. This near-absolute domination, especially in the areas of trade, banking, economics and foreign policy, has continued unchallenged and unabated to the present.

Windfall profits have accrued to interests associated with the Trilateral Commission, but
the effect of their “New International Economic Order” on the U.S. has been nothing less than devastating. (See America Plundered by the Global Elite for a more detailed analysis)

The philosophical underpinnings of the Trilateral Commission are pro-Marxist and pro-socialist. They are solidly set against the concept of the nation-state and in particular, the Constitution of the United States. Thus, national sovereignty must be diminished and then abolished altogether in order to make way for the New World Order that will be governed by an unelected global elite with their self-created legal framework.

If you are having negative sentiment against Trilateral-style globalization, you are not alone. A 2007 Financial Times/Harris poll revealed that less than 20 percent of people in six industrialized countries (including the U.S.) believe that globalization is good for their country while over 50 percent are outright negative towards it.21 (See Global Backlash Against Globalization?) While citizens around the world are feeling the pain of globalization, few understand why it is happening and hence, they have no effective strategy to counter it.

The American public has never, ever conceived that such forces would align themselves so successfully against freedom and liberty. Yet, the evidence is clear: Steerage of America has long since fallen into the hands of an actively hostile enemy that intends to remove all vestiges of the very things that made us the greatest nation in the history of mankind.


http://www.augustreview.com/issues/globalization/the_trilateral_commission:_usurping_sovereignty_2007080373/#

We can't help but wonder why Beck hasn't outed other noted globalists than Soros as authors have and when will Beck's viewers hold him accountable for missing informative pieces such as from the August Review.

It's about time they did.

The Global Elite: Who are they?
Introduction

...This report will attempt to identify and label the core players in the globalization process. The intent is to show the makeup and pattern of the core, not to list every person in it. Nevertheless, many people will be named and their associations and connections revealed. This is done for two reasons.

First, it will equip the reader be able to accurately identify other core players as they are brought into focus. Secondly, the reader will be able to pass over minor players who may sound like "big fish" but in fact are only pedestrians.

http://www.augustreview.com/issues/globalization/the_global_elite:_who_are_they?_200511146/#

Net the Truth Online

TSA:No Right of Refusal Scanner Pat-Downs if Baggage Conveyed

Can you believe this is happening? We can.

Civil penalty possible if airport body scan, pat-down rejected
By Tom Fontaine
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Airline passengers don't have a right to refuse security screening after placing carry-on bags on conveyor belts at airport checkpoints, according to the Transportation Security Administration.
It doesn't matter if a person worries that body scanners emit radiation or produce graphic images, or considers the alternative -- a pat-down search -- as too hands-on.

Those were among objections a California man gave when he refused to be screened Saturday in a San Diego airport. The man opted to turn around and go home but said he was threatened with legal action as he left the checkpoint area.

The TSA on Monday defended its actions, touching off arguments among travelers and legal experts.

Body scanners "safely screen passengers for metallic and nonmetallic threats to help keep the traveling public safe," said spokeswoman Ann Davis. Such screening is optional, she said, but passengers who decline must undergo alternate screening that includes "a thorough pat-down."

Independent studies showed radiation from the screeners does not present a risk, Davis said. Some pilots are concerned about cumulative effects if they pass through a scanner several times a day and several days a week, said Sam Mayer, a Boeing 767 captain and spokesman for the Allied Pilots Association.

The agency's representatives two weeks ago started using their palms and fingers to probe for hidden weapons and other devices in pat-down searches. In the past, screeners used the back of their hands to brush past sensitive body parts.

Anyone who refuses screening would be subject to civil penalty, Davis said, in addition to being denied access beyond a security checkpoint or onto a flight. She couldn't say whether the agency fined anyone for refusing to be screened, but she said less than 1 percent of passengers require pat-down searches. The TSA has 300 full-body scanners operational in 60 U.S. airports, including five in Pittsburgh, and will deploy more.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/transportation/s_709528.html

There is more. See how Judges are enabling the federal government, and so-called experts agree it's A OK.

Civil penalty possible if airport body scan, pat-down rejected
By Tom Fontaine
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, November 16, 2010

A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion issued in 2007 supports the TSA's stance.

"The constitutionality of an airport screening search does not depend on consent, and requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world," the opinion reads.

Allowing a passenger to revoke consent "would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by 'electing not to fly' on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found," the opinion said.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/transportation/s_709528.html

Janet Napolitano: Scanners R Safe Pat Downs Discreet

Napolitano: Scanners are safe, pat-downs discreet

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-15-column15_ST1_N.htm

OK Janet, let's have your grand-daughters aged 13 or 15 take a flight with a regular airline instead of the elite private jets and wait in line to be patted down, discreetly, of course. Not just one trip, but dozens or hundreds.

See, the problem is not just an abridgement and intrusion by government on our 4th Amendment rights, the problem is certain people are simply exempted because they work for the government.

How about Napolitano stand for a full body scan on just one day, and have the radiation go over her again and again all at once, say 100 times. Think she'll do it to show it's safe. Of course she would, for show, but it will be a fake machine.

Net the Truth Online

Napolitano: Scanners are safe, pat-downs discreet

...As part of our layered approach, we have expedited the deployment of new Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) units to help detect concealed metallic and non-metallic threats on passengers. These machines are now in use at airports nationwide, and the vast majority of travelers say they prefer this technology to alternative screening measures.

AIT machines are safe, efficient, and protect passenger privacy. They have been independently evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, who have all affirmed their safety. And the weapons and other dangerous and prohibited items we've found during AIT screenings have illustrated their security value time and again.

Rigorous privacy safeguards are also in place to protect the traveling public. All images generated by imaging technology are viewed in a walled-off location not visible to the public. The officer assisting the passenger never sees the image, and the officer viewing the image never interacts with the passenger. The imaging technology that we use cannot store, export, print or transmit images.

If an anomaly is detected during screening with AIT, if an alarm occurs after a passenger goes through a walk-through metal detector, or if a passenger opts out of either of these screening methods, we use pat-downs to help detect hidden and dangerous items like the one we saw in the failed terrorist attack last Christmas Day.

Pat-downs have long been one of the many security measures used by the U.S. and countries across the world to make air travel as secure as possible. They're conducted by same-gender officers, and all passengers have the right to request private screening and have a traveling companion present during the screening process.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-15-column15_ST1_N.htm

'Naked' scanners at US airports may be dangerous: scientists
By Karin Zeitvogel (AFP) – 2 days ago

WASHINGTON — Some US scientists warned Friday that the full-body, graphic-image X-ray scanners now being used to screen passengers and airline crews at airports around the country may be unsafe.

"They say the risk is minimal, but statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays," Dr Michael Love, who runs an X-ray lab at the department of biophysics and biophysical chemistry at Johns Hopkins University school of medicine, told AFP.

"No exposure to X-ray is considered beneficial. We know X-rays are hazardous but we have a situation at the airports where people are so eager to fly that they will risk their lives in this manner," he said.

The possible health dangers posed by the scanners add to passengers' and airline crews' concerns about the devices, which have been dubbed "naked" scanners because of the graphic image they give of a person's body, genitalia and all.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) began rolling out full-body scanners at US airports in 2007, but stepped up deployment of the devices this year when stimulus funding made it possible to buy another 450 of the advanced imaging technology scanners.

Some 315 "naked" scanners are currently in use at 65 US airports, according to the TSA.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h08khPyFPinX_4vNYd1JZwn8hV4Q?docId=CNG.442824fa7c08853af96322d7315a6f02.461

Mo McGowan: Nobody likes Airport Scanners 4th Amendment Violation But

Mo McGowan speaking on Fox News this morning and asked about the full body scanners and pat downs mandated by the federal government to be used at airports which some are criticizing and in some cases refusing to comply responded:

"Nobody likes their 4th Amendment Rights Violated going through a security line, but the truth is we have to do it... wouldn't you want your children and grandchildren protected by using this and other means necessary to thwart attack..."

see Fox video of interview with McGowan

November 15, 2010

Backlash Against Airport Body Scans
Traveler records confrontation after he refused full body scan and pat down

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4419443/backlash-against-airport-body-scans/?playlist_id=87937

Ah yes. Use the safety of our children and grandchildren to sell this travesty to what the Founding Framers of the United States Constitution intended.

Worse, McGowan admits our 4th Amendment rights exist and are thus violated by the full body scanners and the pat-downs.

Meanwhile, making the rounds of some news programs, a potential traveler refuses the full body scan with the words: "I don't think so..."

Fox News video report clip of traveler who used cell phone to record encounter

November 15, 2010

National Debate Over Full-Body Scanners
Travelers' group calls for boycott of airport scanners

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4419495/national-debate-over-full-body-scanners/?playlist_id=87937

Here's the story from anonymous posting at johnnyedge.blogspot

http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html

California man confronting procedures records on cellphone beware graphic

November 15, 2010

Backlash Against Airport Body Scans
Traveler records confrontation after he refused full body scan and pat down

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4419443/backlash-against-airport-body-scans/?playlist_id=87937

Lew Rockwell's blog notes a contribution entitled:

The Porno Scanner-Spangled Banner
Posted by Lew Rockwell on November 8, 2010 09:01 AM
Writes Robert Frasconi

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/68798.html

Graphic descriptions beware but be wary of hands=on pat-downs

Daedalus Shrugged
by William Norman Grigg

http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w180.html

Meanwhile, a Reuters poll on the issue reveals an astonishing 2 percent of respondents think these extreme measures are just A OK and necessary and are not affecting personal flight plans.

Are new security screenings affecting your decision to fly?
Nov 12, 2010 13:02 EST

http://blogs.reuters.com/ask/2010/11/12/are-new-security-screenings-affecting-your-decision-to-fly/?cp=5

98 percent think the measures are not OK, while another 2 percent are well just the undecideds.

What can we do? Apparently, nothing, as parents are willing to subject their own children to the concept of governmental Authority rules, even when your rights are violated by such. Imagine the children of the future after a few years of this.

Stand there. Raise your hands up high. Bend over. Lift up your leg. Lift up your other leg. All under the absolutely ignorant gaze of parent puppets, and people like Mo McGowen with excuse after excuse as to why the government must do this to save you and protect you.

We're not buying it. Neither should the other air travelers.

All it would take is one day of full non-compliance by ticket holders who in tandem stand and refuse to be scanned or patted down. Make a daisy chain holding hands around the entirety of the airport in every single airport in the country and refuse to be subjected to this violation of your 4th Amendment rights. Turned away from flight. Do so. Stand in lines to submit a complaint and try to obtain a refund. If you are refused a refund, hold onto your ticket and exit the airport all at the same time in a single orderly file.

Imagine thousands of ticket-holding customers all sending in a photocopy of tickets, and demanding a full refund from the airlines.

When that is not forthcoming, find a freedom-loving attorney somewhere in this country who will take the case on.

Soon

We've heard some like Bill O'Reilly guest Laura Ingraham exclaim flying is not a right, it's a privilege.

She should talk to Mo McGowan who at least has admitted the airport full body scans and pat-downs are a violation of the constitutional 4th Amendment rights of travelers.

Fox is also reporting there is a website devoted to a day before Thanksgiving opt out. but unfortunately the only thing suggested to opt out of is the full body scan!

Can you believe that. OK opt into the pat-down, dummies. You can still travel, raise a little protest by making things go a bit slower, but you can still get to travel = yes you can...

Net the Truth Online

More from Lew Rockwell blog

Mad Dogs of the TSA
Porno-scan, porno-grope, $10,000 fine, cops throw him out of the airport. What happened to John Tyner.

If We Think Beating the TSA Is All
May our chains rest lightly on our wrists, says Brian Travis.


Orbitz, Thanks
But you must do more against the TSA, says Kathryn Muratore

http://www.lewrockwell.com/

Lou Dobbs Fox Business Network Show Truth Be Told?

Who didn't know this was coming? Interesting. Maybe he'll team up with Sarah Palin a couple of times and not refrain from showing her in her true light as everybody else at Fox just tippy toes around her and her lack of knowledge about much. For instance, Judge Napolitano will interview Palin on his weekly and nightly program.

We have no reason to believe Napolitano will hold Palin accountable for her lack of Constititional knowledge.

John Stossel obviously won't chance having Palin on his program as he'd annihilate her on hundreds of issues.

Dobbs has a multi-year contract now, and an opportunity to bring truth out the truth, starting with Palin, and right on to everything and everyone else.

Net the Truth Online

Former CNNer Lou Dobbs Signs Multi-Year Contract With Fox Business Network
by Hillary Busis | 1:47 pm, November 10th, 2010

http://www.mediaite.com/online/former-cnner-lou-dobbs-signs-multi-year-contract-with-fox-business-network/

Beck Still Claiming Global Currency New World Order Not A Conspiracy

We're nearly speechless. A while back, Glenn Beck had Damon Vickers explaining to him how when things go downhill, albeit slowly, there will come a time when the international solution to the global financial 'crisis' will be: a global currency and a new world order ...

the pair even laughed as Beck brought up a question about conspiracy... uh No explained Vickers. Beck laughed all the way through...

Now Beck's 11/05/2010 program he's tagged the 15-Day Decline in the Dollar experts include Damon Vickers and ... Brad Thor...

The trio are laughing as Beck mentions again his question about a conspiracy, and his denial he believes there is any conspiracy.

Oh no, of course not the two guest experts plugging their books respond in unison.

Beck notes again, for his oh so walking-dead live audience, no conspiracy, "I believe these people..." - don't rise up in a united gasp audience... don't object when Beck states his belief:

"these people believe they're doing the RIGHT THING."

Sure Beck. Because you cannot 'connect the dots' to a specific political side you do not favor, say Marxist supporters you find among the policy-makers in the Obama Administration, because all in Congress (with the exception of Ron Paul), and a specific current President of the United States and all former Presidents have supported this madness, it is best not to admit there's been a conspiracy and every single federal office-holder who's supported the Federal Reserve system has been a part of it.

Beck's guest Brad Thor has a novel to plug The Athena Project. According to Beck's plug of the author, Thor was a former Think Tanker. Right audience, just clap.

Now how can Brad Thor sit there and talk about anarchists and revolutionaries as the haha bad guys... but no, the (known) manipulators of the U.S. financial system they are not the bad guys.

There's nobody behind the curtain, according to Beck, no real conspiracy HAHAHA to bring us into a New World Order, uhuh, look all around that curtain, Beck audience, don't open it all the way, even though you see a pair of shoes, and is that laughter you hear, it's nobody.

Thank you to Logistics Monster. Here is the complete Nov. 5, 2010 video of Glenn Beck's program the 15-Day Decline in the Dollar...

review Beck accepting Damon Vickers offering again... what we need and what is coming to fix the global financial crisis is New World Order...

but listen carefully to Beck, it's ok as long as it doesn't come from the "government..."

There goes Damon Vickers again... let's try a new twist... this will be a 'community' thing... all we have is "faith, courage, love," and oh yes, Beck emphatically agrees with t-h-a-t... what is coming is profound either profound darkness or profound wonder-ful-ness, exclaims Beck...

And the audience just claps and claps and claps.

Right, as long as the currency for the world has the words In God We Trust (maybe it will even in some way partially be backed by gold), believers, there is no darkness.

It's all profound wonder-ful-ness.

Net the Truth Online

Logistics Monster

http://logisticsmonster.com/2010/11/05/glenn-beck-11-5-2010-the-15-day-decline-in-the-dollar/

Federal Reserve Jekyll Island conference

The Federal Reserve Is Holding A Conference On Jekyll Island To Celebrate 100 Years Of Dominating America: “A Return to Jekyll Island: The Origins, History, and Future of the Federal Reserve”
The Federal Reserve is going back to Jekyll Island to celebrate the 100 year anniversary of the infamous 1910 Jekyll Island meeting that spawned the draft legislation that would ultimately create the U.S. Federal Reserve. The title of this conference is "A Return to Jekyll Island: The Origins, History, and Future of the Federal Reserve", and it will be held on November 5th and 6th in the exact same building where the original 1910 meeting occurred. In November 1910, the original gathering at Jekyll Island included U.S. Senator Nelson W. Aldrich, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Department A.P. Andrews and many representatives from the upper crust of the U.S. banking establishment. That meeting was held in an environment of absolute and total secrecy. 100 years later, Federal Reserve bureaucrats will return to Jekyll Island once again to "celebrate" the history and the future of the Federal Reserve.

Sadly, most Americans have no idea how the Federal Reserve came into being.


http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-federal-reserve-is-holding-a-conference-on-jekyll-island-to-celebrate-100-years-of-dominating-america-a-return-to-jekyll-island-the-origins-history-and-future-of-the-federal-reserve

Dollar Value Decrease = Happy U.S.A., Right?

MSNBC guest economists discussed the recent action taken by Ben Bernacke... one noted a goal was to spur U.S. exports to foreign countries and by the value of the dollar decreasing more such products/exports would be 'affordable...'

Uh uh.

a must read here at Net the Truth Online. We really want to "know" the truth, no matter what the truth shows.

Re: The Federal Reserve
Zeitgeist provides a condemnation of central banks in general, as of the Federal Reserve in particular. The Federal Reserve is portrayed as the product of a broad conspiracy, and that it is run for massive profits by secret owners. It is a mixture of fact, fiction, and insinuation.

Web Skeptic has addressed this part of the film point-by-point because there does not seem to be any other such comprehensive analysis of this section of the film on the web.

http://webskeptic.wikidot.com/zeitgeist-federal-reserve

Some items of note...

Mike Whitney: Dollar in the Dustbin

QE2 and Last Rites for the World's Reserve Currency
Dollar in the Dustbin
By MIKE WHITNEY


Millions of Americans have no idea what Quantitative Easing is or how it will effect them personally. That's why Wednesday's announcement that the Fed will purchase another $600 billion in US Treasuries merely reinforced feelings of helplessness and a sense that government spending is out-of-control. Unfortunately, Ben Bernanke's rambling explanation of QE2 in a Washington Post op-ed on Thursday only added to the confusion. The article is loaded with half-truths and omissions that are meant to mislead the public about how the program works and what the Fed's real objectives are. It's another missed opportunity by Bernanke to come clean with the people and let them know what policies are being enacted in their name...

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney11052010.html

9 Reasons Why Quantitative Easing Is Bad For The U.S. Economy

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/9-reasons-why-quantitative-easing-is-bad-for-the-u-s-economy

Book Review @ Mises Institute: How an Economy Grows

How an Economy Grows And Why it Crashes by Peter d. Schiff and Andrew J. Schiff

Mises Daily: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 by George F. Smith

...People who find anything related to economics tedious will find the Schiff book an exciting discovery. It should have special appeal to Austrians at all levels of expertise, while the Keynesian wizards who laughed at Peter Schiff when he predicted the housing collapse will likely disdain it.

It might be the only economics book ever written that could be read aloud to one's family without putting them to sleep. The narrative never once lags or becomes academic. The authors manage to convey the critical concepts without straying from their "Connecticut straight-talk" approach.

http://mises.org/daily/4796

Articles and Recommended Books at Mises Institute

http://mises.org/articles.aspx

You tube video - rap

"Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap...by EconStories

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

The Making of the Keynes-Hayek Rap: Economic Theory Meets Popular Culture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBzXpH3Tjo0&feature=related

PBS Newshour

Keynes vs. Hayek: Late Economists' Rap Battle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGd3PHXIqU0&feature=related

Rap find via

November 04, 2010
An Epic Rematch
In January, the website EconStories released the first epic rap battle between Friedrich Hayek and John Maynard Keynes.

At The Economist Buttonwood Gathering, the two met again live on stage.

Video below the jump.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/307876.php

via

http://ace.mu.nu/

via

http://minx.cc/?post=307867

election fraud

It happens... election fraud, and here is what happened in response to what happened in a past election.

The Connecticut Election Fraud.

.[ DISPLAYING ABSTRACT ]

The course taken by the Democratic members of the Connecticut Legislature last Wednesday, affords a striking illustration of the natural sympathy that appears everywhere to exist in these days between a large section of Democracy and fraud.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F50E14F634541B7493C7A9178ED85F458784F9

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50E14F634541B7493C7A9178ED85F458784F9

But nope, not widespread in 2010. Give US a break.

election fraud 2010 style - is not enough to force investigations of voter registries, paper ballots without optical scanners, districts that have more reported as voting than registered in a district, and so on and so forth. Just not enough because Secretary of State appointments are more important and what SoS says in the end, is official, well, that is official and the end.

http://www.google.com/#q=election+fraud&hl=en&rlz=1R2SKPT_enUS403&tbs=nws:1&ei=IRrUTOnCG4OKlwfw5fnaBQ&start=10&sa=N&fp=af30fe239ea3a864

Updated daily

Foley concedes defeat, but GOP wants probe of Bridgeport vote
Ken Dixon, Staff Writer
Published: 11:55 p.m., Monday, November 8, 2010

Tom Foley abandoned any legal challenge Monday of his 5,810-vote loss in the governor's race, saying that while election irregularities were rampant in Bridgeport an appeal wouldn't overturn Dan Malloy's "conclusive" gubernatorial victory.

In a low-key, gracious valedictory session with reporters, the Greenwich Republican said that after meeting all weekend with his legal team and reviewing a variety of Election Day problems town by town, there was "no credible evidence" of fraudulent voting.

But the concession six days after the election did not stop Chris Healy, chairman of the Republican State Central Committee, from filing requests for investigations on Monday with the U.S. Department of Justice and the office of the Chief State's Attorney.

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Foley-concedes-defeat-but-GOP-wants-probe-of-803589.php

Bridgeport Connecticut: Video From The Polls

So many things went so wrong.

Mayor Jason McCoy has obtained a video that was taken inside a polling place in Bridgeport and shows a poll watcher warning a poll worker not to mix unofficial ballots with official ballots. She ignores him and he is escorted away.
There are additional charges:

* Some voters were given more than one ballot
* Other voters were not checked off on the registration list
* Some voters were never asked for IDs

http://minx.cc/?post=307908

Vernon's McCoy Says Video Shows Bridgeport Election Official Refusing To Follow Law
November 05, 2010|By DAVID OWENS

Vernon Mayor Jason L. McCoy, a Republican who worked as a poll monitor in Tuesday's election, said he saw questionable conduct on the part of Bridgeport election officials, although he said the conduct in many cases appeared to be unintentional.

In one instance he shot video of an election worker not counting ballots before putting them in a bag. McCoy said he was urging the woman to count them before placing them in the bag.

Another man, whose name McCoy said he did not know, yelled at the woman to count the ballots.

http://articles.courant.com/2010-11-05/news/hc-election-mccoy-video-1106-20101105_1_ballots-mccoy-election-officials

don't miss this headliner

Bag of Uncounted Ballots Found in Bridgeport

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/elections/2010/races/race-2/Bag-of-Uncounted-Ballots-Found-in-Bridgeport-106727208.html

How Republican Gov. candidate Foley could ever concede amid such reports of a bag of ballots being found after the election and uncounted is beyond our comprehension.
Foley should never concede. Unfortunately, he may not be able to obtain a recount or any investigation of what happened in Bridgeport and other areas where voter registration favors Democrat numbers. Worse still is the extension of voting hours in this same voting district for some couple of hours after the official time for polls to close there. And to add to the confusion, it is unclear whether the list of voters who signed in is a complete list of those who cast the paper ballots during the 2-hour extension period.

Net the Truth Online

Bridgeport ballots counted; Malloy wins
Brittany Lyte, Ken Dixon And Timothy Loh, Staff Writers
Published: 10:46 a.m., Friday, November 5, 2010

...The vote totals posted earlier on the secretary of the state's website, which include totals for all of the state's municipalities except Bridgeport, showed that Foley led Malloy, 556,787 to 548,378.

A Foley campaign representative who sat in on the overnight counting, noted that the Bridgeport tallies had changed during the tally process.

"We think the tallying process was flawed," said Chris Covucci, a state field director for the Foley campaign. "It's inaccurate to say that this is the final number."

An ovenlike yellow lunch room inside the Registrar of Voters office was the site of the three-day vote count, and recount, that launched at midnight after Election Day.

A bag of uncounted ballots found in McLevy Hall earlier had plunged the already chaotic governor's election into further confusion, prompted a new round of political accusations and delayed until Friday the expected announcement from state officials that Malloy had triumphed.

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Bridgeport-ballots-counted-Malloy-wins-797923.php

Miffed is an understatement for Bridgeport's election performance
Published: 11:09 p.m., Thursday, November 4, 2010

http://www.ctpost.com/opinion/article/Miffed-is-an-understatement-for-Bridgeport-s-798990.php

And what is going on currently as of November 3, 2010?

via Luther Weeks

Connecticut Governor Race: Integrity Issues

http://www.ctvoterscount.org/connecticut-governors-races-integrity-issues/

November 4, 2010?

Recount may loom amid confusion in Connecticut governor race CS Monitor
The secretary of state declared Democrat Dan Malloy the winner Wednesday in the Connecticut governor race, before the release of official numbers. Republican Tom Foley says his own tally puts him ahead

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Governors/2010/1104/Recount-may-loom-amid-confusion-in-Connecticut-governor-race

Foley not conceding Conn. governor's race
Published: Thursday, November 04, 2010

unable to access news item

Foley: Show Me The Numbers
by Paul Bass | Nov 3, 2010 1:51 pm

http://newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/foley_show_me_the_numbers/id_30945

Foley Asks Bysiewicz To Hold Off On Calling Election Results 'Official' - Controversy Continues
November 04, 2010|By CHRISTOPHER KEATING, The Hartford CourantJustin Clark, the campaign manager for Tom Foley, is asking that Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz refrain from calling any election results "official'' today in the governor's race.

"Tom Foley contacted the Secretary of the State's office this morning to request that any further announcements of election results for the governor's race be postponed until the results are certain and discrepancies between The Secretary of the State's office, the Tom Foley for Governor campaign, and the media, are reconciled,'' Clark said early this afternoon.

"In the last 24 hours alone, Bridgeport has revised downward the number of votes cast for Dan Malloy by over 3,500,'' he continued. "Other cities and towns are likely to revise their results in the days ahead. We understand that Susan Bysiewicz plans to announce this afternoon that their results of the gubernatorial election are official. We have sent the Secretary of the State's office a letter requesting that she not refer to her preliminary results of the election as "official" until the results are unlikely to be amended.''

http://articles.courant.com/2010-11-04/news/hc-foley-election-results-1104_1_election-results-announcements-campaign-manager

AOL Message Board regarding Governor's race in Connecticut

http://messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?boardId=544978&articleId=991894&func=6&channel=Do+You+Believe&filterRead=false&filterHidden=true&filterUnhidden=false

News

Fox News reports Sec. of State of Connecticut has pushed back the press conference to 3 PM EST.

New Haven Votes Could Push Malloy Over The Top In Governor's Race
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING, ERIC GERSHON and JON LENDER, ckeating@courant.com

1:12 p.m. EDT, November 4, 2010

CLIP

Malloy was declared the winner of the governor's race Wednesday by Bysiewicz, but the Florida-style election is not over: Foley not only refused to concede Wednesday, he claimed victory.

Bysiewicz said Wednesday that Malloy won by an unofficial margin of 3,100 votes.

Wednesday evening, the Associated Press — which had called the race for Malloy — withdrew its call. It reported that only about 9,000 votes had been cast in New Haven, and its vote count showed Foley with a lead of 8,424 votes over Malloy with all but 1.5 percent of the precincts counted.

But Thursday morning, vote totals posted online by the AP mirrored the numbers reported by the New Haven Registrar of Voters.

The AP's online totals now show Malloy winning the race by 6,240 votes, with all but 10 precincts in Bridgeport reporting.

"Out of an abundance of caution, we're just waiting" to call the race, said William J. Kole, AP's New England bureau chief, shortly before 12:30 p.m. Thursday. "We are looking at whether we want to call it back for Malloy."

AP "un-called" the race Wednesday night because they realized they were missing vote counts, Kole said. Votes were missing from both New Haven and Bridgeport, and Windham also hadn't reported all of its votes until Thursday morning, Kole said.

Fifteen of 25 precincts in Bridgeport still haven't reported totals, he said.

"We just didn't have the numbers," Kole said. "It didn't make sense to say Malloy won it slightly."

At one point, AP mistakenly thought it had 100 percent of the votes cast in New Haven, he said.

AP had called the race for Malloy in the first place "largely because of the secretary of state saying he won," he said.

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-ct-governor-election-results-1105-20101104,0,7073133.story

discussion following article

http://discussions.courant.com/20/hartnews/hc-ct-governor-election-results-1105-20101104/10

Bloomberg

...Democrat Dan Malloy, the former mayor of Stamford, was declared the unofficial winner over Republican Tom Foley in the race for Connecticut governor as the two sides sparred over election results. Foley refused to concede.

Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz said today that Malloy won, based on unofficial results that show him leading Foley by about 3,000 votes with almost all the ballots counted. It will take about a week to certify the ballots, said Av Harris, a spokesman for Bysiewicz. If the final margin is less than 2,000 votes, a recount is mandatory, Harris said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-03/malloy-is-elected-connecticut-governor-over-foley-as-democrats-end-drought.html

Fox News to have a report live soon reportedly with the Connecticut Secretary of State press conference amid allegations of voter fraud ...

Net the Truth Online

Meanwhile

Really angry with good reason...

http://minx.cc/?post=307867

John Stossel Face Down with Bill O'Reilly on Vote Getters

We were disappointed with John Stossel when he faced Fox's The Factor powerhouse, Bill O'Reilly recently just prior to the mid-term elections.

O'Reilly was apparently convinced Republican candidates who supported the same concept of limited government as Tea Party activists were the only way to go this election. Who else is there? O'Reilly posed the question of choice between a Democrat and a Republican candidate for federal office specifically to Stossel during the program.

Stossel did not say anything like in his column of the day after the mid-term election.

Stossel knows that the two most unworthy of a dime of public monies Social (in)Security Medicare and other federal entitlement programs, and the (unconstitutional) Military Budget (and any other aspects of the budget which are not constitutionally authorized) as he says in Did Freedom Win remained unuttered sacred cows during Tea Party rallies, candidate rallies, speeches, and sit down breakfasts with the Republican candidates who promised 'limited government.'

Yet during his one-on-one with O'Reilly, Stossel could only shake his head when asked Who else is there than a Republican to vote for?

We can only wonder why Stossel didn't say emphatically to O'Reilly. It would be a better message to send to Washington DC to write in Peter Pan or Dumbo because stopping power elite from spending and spending on whatever they think is of benefit to their re-elections in the future is never going to happen.

Stossel was given an opportunity to explain why neither Republicans or Democrats fit the true "freedom" bill and shouldn't suit Bill O'Reilly either, so though he wasn't going to reveal who he was going to vote for, he could have made it clear it wasn't going to be any of the Republicans, Tea Party supported or other.

Net the Truth Online

John Stossel:
This Week's Column: Did Freedom Win?
The polls have closed. With the Tea Party taking some important races, and Republicans re-taking control of the House, some people have declared this election a victory for freedom. Many winning candidates campaigned on a promise to cut back on government. Some vowed to restore government to its constitutional limits.

But the Republicans have a poor record when it comes to cutting government. As I write in this week’s column, I’m not sure the Tea Party Republicans will do any better:

[…] The Tea Party is supposed to be different. It stands for fiscal responsibility, spending cuts, and deficit reduction. A New York Times poll found that 92 percent of Tea Partiers said they would rather have a “smaller government providing fewer services” than a “bigger government providing more services.” That’s encouraging. But when it comes to specifics, the results aren’t as good. The poll found that 62 percent thought “the benefits from government programs such as Social Security and Medicare are worth the costs.” A Bloomberg poll found that most Tea Partiers “want more drug benefits for Medicare patients” (http://tinyurl.com/25mpear). And when was the last time you heard Tea Partiers complaining about the exploding military budget?


Strangely, in other questions, Tea Partiers did seem willing to accept cuts in domestic entitlement programs if it meant smaller government. The contradictory answers don’t bode well for the time when lobbyists for well-organized special interests mount their passionate attacks against cuts.


You just cannot be committed to cutting government if you would leave two of the costliest programs intact.

Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/11/03/this-weeks-column-did-freedom-win/?action=late-new#ixzz14JmlL1J4

We highlight Thomas J. DiLorenzo's Be Patriotic: Don't Vote here since it provides a viewpoint of interest with much of its contents.

Poll Watch do it yourself style

Update coming soon where was the fraud, caught and prosecuted?

We already know the answer...

Suspect or see election day fraud, November 2, 2010? Download an app for your phone...

Just in time for Election Day, American Majority Action has created the nation’s first mobile application to help identify, report and track suspected incidents of voter fraud and intimidation. This free, cutting edge system will enable voters to take action to help defend their right to vote. Whether you’re a campaign junkie, or just want a better America, Voter Fraud will help you report violations at the election booth and serve to uphold the democratic process.


http://americanmajorityaction.org/voterfraudapp/

Isn't Election Tampering in Play if Clinton Urged Meek Drop Out

Fox reporting for the second day that former President Clinton asked/encouraged Senate candidate Kendrick Meek to drop out of the race to prevent Marco Rubio the Republican candidate from winning...

As for Meek, according to yahoonews Bill Clinton urged Meek to quit the Florida Senate race he's challenging Politico Ben Smith's reportage on the circumstances as presented in the piece, Bill Clinton pushed Kendrick Meek to quit Florida race

Meek further alleges involvement of Governor Charlie Crist who switched party affiliation from Republican to Independent to make his bid for the Senate seat.

"President Clinton did not ask me to drop out of the race," Meek told reporters. "Nobody has called and said, 'You need to drop out of the race.'" Instead, he blamed Crist for starting the rumors, telling reporters that the Florida governor is trying to run him out of the race—an allegation that Crist did not dispute.

On Friday, Meek did a tour of national morning shows, doubling down on his argument that it was Crist, not Clinton, who tried to push him out of the race. "Gov. Crist talked to me about getting out of the race," Meek told CNN's American Morning. "I recommended to the governor that he should consider getting out of the race."

In an interview with Good Morning America's George Stephanopoulos, Meek insisted that Clinton "didn't encourage" him to quit the race. "I'll tell you this George, I never told President Clinton or any of his staffers…or Charlie Crist or anyone else that I was going to get out of the race," Meek said, again contradicting the Clinton camp."I guarantee you that I did not say I am getting out of the race."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101029/el_yblog_upshot/bill-clinton-urged-meek-to-quit-the-florida-senate-race

Which is it?

In the real world, it wouldn't matter who made the attempt to have a candidate drop out. The attempt would be illegal and criminal under election law as the outcome of an election is at stake. It's a big, big no-no in the real world to encourage a candidate to drop out of an election for any reason, and if anything of any value such as a new boat, a trip, etc. is offered, that is nothing less than an election bribe.

We take issue with Politico's Smith as well with this ditty:

Clinton did not dangle a job in front of Meek, who gave up a safe House seat to run for the Senate, but instead made the case that the move would advance the congressman’s future prospects, said a third Democrat familiar with the conversations.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44337.html#ixzz13kthuE2j

How does Smith know for certain Clinton didn't dangle 'something of value' to Meek. Isn't such implied with Smith's wording:

"... made the case that the move would advance the congressman's future prospects..."

did anyone inquire the meaning of "future prospects?"

Doesn't look like there is much interest to get to the real heart of this.

Sadly, though Fox News is again highlighting a situation which adds to the observable irregularities already occuring in the 2010 Mid-term elections, Fox News is not pursuing a full investigation of exactly what happened between Meek, Clinton, and Governor Crist.

Fox needs to find out precisely who made the request of Meek to drop out - who knew of the plea and determine if indeed, as we aver, an election was tampered with even though Meek did not drop out.

And the federal Dept. of Justice needs to pursue prosecution of tampering with an election even if prosecution is of the former President of the United States, Bill Clinton.

If it is also true the White House and current President Barack Obama were apprised of the effort to have a candidate drop out at the urging of a former President and knowledge of a state Governor, prosecution should ensue there as well.

Course, that's in the really real world. Which we don't appear to be in when it comes to elections in the United States of America.

Ruling on Arizona Voter Identification Request Dims State Rights

Who'd have thought the federal government's Motor Voter Act which is itself intrusion into the states rights where conducting elections are concerned would take precedence over the state of Arizona's own duly adopted legislation regarding elections?

Who'd have thought?

Fox now reporting watchers at early voting polls in California. Some believe this is a way to prevent potential voting fraud, others believe it's simple harassment and voter intimiditation.

Eric Shawn reports, and includes a panel consisting of Jeff Davis with election integrity watch and Brennan Center for Public Policy Wendy Weiser...

Do a search for their positions we were not impressed with either comments pertaining to the question asked.


Court voids Arizona law on voter proof of citizenship

Court voids Arizona law on voter proof of citizenship
by Michelle Ye Hee Lee - Oct. 27, 2010 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic.

A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down Arizona's requirement that residents provide proof of citizenship when they register to vote.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that a federal voter-registration law supersedes Arizona's requirement.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/10/26/20101026arizona-voiting-citizenship-law-ruling.html#ixzz13fPOnzjy

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/10/26/20101026arizona-voiting-citizenship-law-ruling.html#ixzz13fPG20bw

Some background and of interest

EAC Chairman Tally Vote Outcome

http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Page/Chairman%20Paul%20DeGregorio%20Regarding%20Arizona%20and%20the%20Federal%20Voter%20Registration%20Form%20August%208%202006.pdf

Take notice of Free Republic efforts to compile reports of allegations, instances, outcomes of lawsuits regarding voter fraud around the country

A drive to protect vote fraud
NY Post ^ | October 26, 2010 | Michelle Malkin

Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2010 7:32:09 AM by Scanian

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2615409/posts

In Arizona, illegal aliens, felons and multi-state residents vote unabated
Sonoran News ^ | October 22, 2010 | Linda Bentley

Posted on Friday, October 22, 2010 11:15:58 AM by La Lydia

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2612514/posts

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

Chairman Election Board: Independent Voters Were Disenfranchised

This Herald-Standard article title, 96 disputed ballots rejected
May 26, 2010 04:20 AM By: STEVE FERRIS Herald Standard is such an inaccurate one we have been stumped to know where to start to refute it.

We wonder why the title wasn't reflective of the reality of what happened on Election Day in Pennsylvania in a North Union Townshipe precinct after a Fayette County Judge of Elections handed out two special election ballots to Primary registered Democrat and Republican voters (one of the ballots was intended only for Independent registered voters and contained only the Special Election face off between three candidates vying for deceased U.S. Rep. John Murtha's vacated seat).

It was only the independent registered voters who legitimately cast the paper ballot they were to use in the special election for John Murtha's vacated Congressional seat who were "disenfranchised."

The Republican and Democrat voters who voted on two separate paper ballots for the same vacated seat of John Murtha were NOT DISENFRANCHISED. The votes they cast using the Primary ballot which contained the block for the 'special election' were counted and tallied.

Some background before we give out the title the Herald-Standard should have used to report the outcome of the Fayette Election Board's decision regarding North Union Township District 4 and the "snafu" which in the end resulted in the disenfranchisement of three independent voters.

The Special Election was claimed to be held within time contraints for doing so by PA Governor Edward Rendell to fill the vacated term of office of deceased U.S. Rep. John Murtha (U.S. District 12). Gov. Rendell decided to have the Special Election for the unexpired term to be held within the already designated PA Primary Election, Tuesday, May 18, 2010.

The county of Fayette utilizes a dual voting system having gone first with Hart InterCivic's Direct Recording Electronic voting machines known as eSlates back in 2006 and later in 2008 adopting as an alternative voting system the hand-marked paper ballot voting system known as Hart InterCivic's eScan.

For the special election (John Murtha's vacated seat), Fayette voters in the 12th U.S. Congressional District had a choice of either the eSlate or the eScan paper ballot.

The DRE ballot contained the Primary candidates for other contests and the special election. Obviously, the paper ballot for Primary voters (registered Democrats and Republicans) contained the Primary candidates for other contests and the three candidates for the special election. Nominees of the Republican and Democrat parties, and the nominee of the Libertarian Party.

Meanwhile, other Party registered or independent voters are blocked from voting in the Primary for Republicans and Democrat candidates in Pennsylvania, known as a 'closed Primary,' but are enabled to exercise their voting rights in the special election.

According to a PA Independent election-day article, 175 People Voted Twice in Fayette County by Eric Berne, the circumstances in North Union precinct 4 were early on laid out as being a mistake on the part of a Fayette precinct Judge of Elections who described briefly what happened over several hours before she realized Primary (registered Democrats and Republicans) paper ballot voters in the special election should not have been given two separate ballots...

...Amber Lilley, judge of elections at the North Union Township fourth precinct, said she mistakenly thought she was supposed to give out two ballots to each individual in her precinct during today's election because the election served as both a primary election and a special election to fill the Congressional seat vacated by the death of John Murtha.

"There were paper ballots, and there were ballots just for the independent voters for the special election, and my understanding, which was mistaken, was that those were special ballots for the special election," she said.

Ms. Lilley said she eventually realized her mistake, but by then 178 people had already voted. Of that total, 120 were Republicans, 55 were Democrats, and three were Independents.

Because of her mistake, the 175 Republicans and Democrats were able to vote twice, once on their full ballot that included the primary and special election, and once on the special election ballot that was supposed to be used only for independent voters.

After realizing she had made a mistake, Ms. Lilley contacted Larry Blosser, the director of the Fayette County Election Bureau, who told her to secure all the ballots that had been cast and re-set the electronic voting machines.

"We've secured the ballots that were voted on the e-scan machine," said Sheryl Heid, election bureau solicitor for Fayette County. "We're going to hold them separately and the election board will hold a meeting to decide what to do with them."

Ms. Lilley said she was elected to the position of election supervisor in November and was not even aware she had won the election until February. Though she took responsibility for the mix-up, she said her training consisted of little more than watching some videos and basic directions from the state Election Commission.

Ms. Lilley is registered as a Democrat, but a Republican poll watcher was also present at the location throughout the day. Ms. Lilley said the poll watcher also misunderstood the directions on the ballot...

See 175 People Voted Twice in Fayette County

http://paindependent.com/todays_news/detail/175-people-voted-twice-in-fayette-county

We followed subsequent articles in the ensuing few days and noted the discrepancy of reported voters and voted paper ballots under scrutiny.

Our posting can be found at Vote PA Message No 4679

With the election count finalized came news for the contest under dispute the Election Board chose to retain the special election paper ballot votes cast by Primary registered Democrats and Republicans as cast on the "Primary" paper ballot, and to reject all of the paper ballot votes cast by both Primary registered Democrats and Republicans and those of non-Primary voters or Independent registered voters.

We posed questions about the Election Board Meeting that was reported called to order ON Election Eve, Tuesday May 18, 2010 at about 9 PM in our former Violation of PA Sunshine Law in Election Board Meeting, posted May 20, 2010. Sadly, to date, none of the questions have been answered.

So while we welcome the honesty when it comes around from our elected officials, right, we have to wonder why the reality of who was disenfranchised was not headlined.

Vincent Zapotosky, chairman of the election board and county commissioners, said the three non-party voters, who were given the correct ballot, were disenfranchised and Lilley apologized to them.

"I want to apologize to the three Independents who didn't get counted. I want them to vote," Lilley said...

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1220/2010/may/26/96-disputed-ballots-rejected.html

We suggest the more realistic headline:

"3 Independent Voters were Disenfranchised, Election Board Chairman Admits."

We also believe the situation should have been handled far differently.

All of the Primary voters should have equally been disenfranchised. If it's "OK" to disenfranchise three individual voters who were registered independent (so the registered Democrats and Republicans who voted twice can have the ballot they should have used exclusively counted), then it should be OK to disenfranchise the same registered Democrats and Republicans who used two ballots and actually cast two votes in the same special election contest when only one vote was due to them.

One person, one vote. That's the basic tenet of what are supposed to be American-style elections.

But that didn't happen in North Union Township's 4th district/precinct polling place.

Registered Democrats and Republicans got to vote twice in the special election. These voters actually handed in two separate ballots with the same special election contest marked.

It's been reported some of the Democrats and Republicans left the second ballot blank. Well that's just wonderful, why didn't they apprise the Election Judge what was happening if they chose not to mark a second paper ballot?

Had the first such Democrat or Republican who was given a second 'special election' ballot refused and made an objection, and somebody called the election office, the serious mistake would have been caught before even one double vote was cast.

Shockingly from the first to the last voter during the time period when this went on, some six hours, that's nearly half of the voting day, not one paper ballot voter, not one observer, not one poll worker, not one other voter who may have seen more than one paper ballot go to a Primary voter raised any QUESTION whatsoever about what was going on???

The voters who voted twice should not have been later rewarded with enabling their votes to count in the special election.

We wonder why the Election Board members think it's ok to disenfranchise three indpendent registered voters smack them down in order to allow the Primary ballot for registered Republicans and Democrats to stand - fraud free...

Read it and sleep. That's apparantly what the community of Independent and Majority Party voters have done. Not one outcry that three Independent voters were disenfranchised, and that fact comes straight from the chairman of the board of Fayette County Commissioners and the Election Board!

Obviously, as the vote of Election Board members was "unanimous" all members are OK with the disenfranchisement of three voters so the registered Democrats and Republicans can have their choice counted.

We also wonder where are the voting integrity organizations and the Brennan Center and the like on anything related to this incident at one lone precinct?

Missing Inaction, it appears.

Net the Truth Online

96 disputed ballots rejected
May 26, 2010 04:20 AM By: STEVE FERRIS
Herald Standard

The Fayette County Election Board on Tuesday unanimously voted to reject 96 paper election ballots for the 12th Congressional District special election cast by voters in North Union Township's District 4 precinct due to an election judge's error.

After many people voted at the precinct polling place during the May 18 primary and special election, it was discovered that the election judge handed out separate paper ballots for the special election to 93 Democratic and Republican voters and three voters not affiliated with either party.

Only members of political parties other than Democratic or Republican were supposed to receive a ballot with only the special election candidates on it. However, first-time Judge of Elections Amber Lilley handed out the non-party ballots with the special election candidates and the Democratic and Republican ballots, which also had the special election candidates on it, to the 96 voters.

Fayette County Judge Nancy D. Vernon ordered a count of the paper ballots to determine if those voters voted twice.

In the special election, Democrat Mark Critz defeated Republican Tim Burns and Libertarian Demo Agoris to serve the remaining term of the late Rep. John Murtha who died in February.

Critz, who used to work for Murtha, beat Burns by more than 10,000 votes in the district, which encompasses Greene County and parts of eight other counties, including Fayette County. Agoris finished a distant third.

Advertisement At Tuesday's board meeting, Fayette County Election Bureau Director Larry Blosser said only the three non-party voters should have been given the special election ballot.

Citing no way to differentiate between the special election ballots cast by the three non-party voters and the 93 Republicans and Democrats, the board rejected all 96.

Vincent Zapotosky, chairman of the election board and county commissioners, said the three non-party voters, who were given the correct ballot, were disenfranchised and Lilley apologized to them.

"I want to apologize to the three Independents who didn't get counted. I want them to vote," Lilley said.

Election board member and county Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink said the board's decision will be forwarded to Vernon.

In other business, the board rejected 13 provisional ballots and accepted all or parts of 19 others.

In many of the rejected cases, Independent or non-affiliated voters incorrectly voted for Republican or Democratic candidates. In some cases, the voters were registered to vote in other counties and in one case the voter was registered in Ohio.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1220/2010/may/26/96-disputed-ballots-rejected.html

Also see

Judge orders count of paper ballots after possible duplicate votes
May 19, 2010 01:32 AM By: AMY REVAK
Herald Standard
Fayette County Judge Nancy D. Vernon ordered a count of paper ballots cast at one North Union Township precinct late Tuesday to determine how many voters potentially cast more than one ballot for the special election for the 12th Congressional District.

A hearing on the issue was called after it was discovered that Judge of Elections Amber Lilley had handed out duplicate paper ballots for the special election, according to Sheryl Heid, solicitor for the Fayette County Election Bureau.

The mistake was discovered and corrected after 178 people had voted at the North Union Township No. 4 polling place, and the machine was shut down after 223 people had voted. Because voters have the option of either using the e-Slate electronic voting machine or using a paper ballot that is scanned on the e-Scan machine, it was unknown exactly how many voters used paper ballots, and therefore could have overvoted, Heid said.

Heid explained that Lilley handed out two paper ballots to each of those voting at the polling place, which could have led to some people voting twice in the special election.

Advertisement The special election includes the Democratic candidate Mark Critz, the Republican candidate Tim Burns and the Libertarian candidate Demo Agoris. Heid said the Democratic and Republican ballots had the special election listed on them, and the other ballots that listed only the special election should have only gone to voters of other political parties. She said three people in other parties voted in the precinct, all by paper ballot.

Larry Blosser, head of the election bureau, said a count of the paper ballots could be made to determine how many people possibly voted twice for the special election.

Vernon ordered the election board, which includes Commissioners Vincent Zapotosky and Angela M. Zimmerlink and attorney Mark Mehalov, along with attorney James T. Davis, representing Critz and attorney Gary Altman, representating Burns, to count the ballots and then report to court, when she would make a decision.

The count and decision were unavailable late Tuesday.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1220/2010/may/19/judge-orders-count-of-paper-ballots-after-possible-duplicate-votes.html

also see

Fayette ballot snafu probed
May 20, 2010 01:20 AM By: AMY REVAK
Herald Standard
The fate of dozens of extra ballots incorrectly cast at one Fayette County precinct for the special election for the 12th Congressional District will be decided by the Fayette County Election Board and then returned to the court of Judge Nancy D. Vernon.

The mistake, which was halted after nearly 100 voters cast paper ballots at the North Union Township Precinct 4 polling place, occurred when first-time Judge of Elections Amber Lilley incorrectly handed out duplicate ballots for the special election.

Only members of political parties other than Democratic or Republican were supposed to receive a ballot with only the special election candidates on it. However, Lilley handed out both the separate sheet with the special election candidates and the Democratic and Republican ballots, which also had the special election candidates on it, to all voters.

During a hearing Tuesday night, Vernon ordered that the election board, which includes Commissioners Vincent Zapotosky and Angela M. Zimmerlink as well as attorney Mark Mehalov, along with attorney James T. Davis, representing the Democratic Party and the Mark Critz campaign and attorney Gary Altman, representing the Republican Party and the Tim Burns campaign, to make an official tabulation of the paper ballots.

Critz defeated Burns by more than 10,000 votes throughout the district, according to unofficial results. A third candidate, Libertarian Demo Agoris finished a very distant third.

The count of the paper ballots cast at the precinct was made after 10 p.m. and then returned to Vernon, who ruled that the election board make a further determination of the paper ballots in question and return to Vernon for further consideration.

Zapotosky said Wednesday that a review of the paper ballots in question revealed that a total of 93 Republicans and Democrats were given duplicate ballots for the special election and three people of other parties also were given ballots.

Advertisement

Zapotosky said, upon reviewing the ballots, it was determined that all the Democrats and Republicans voted on both the ballot they were supposed to use and the extra ballot. A determination must be made on what to do with the extra ballots, which would include three that were cast by people of other parties. There is no way to know which candidate or candidates the voters selected.

Zapotosky said there was not one "under vote," meaning that every voter that was given two ballots voted for the special election on each of them.

He said the election board will likely meet next week to determine how to handle the ballots in question.

Zapotosky said there should not have been a special election on the day of the primary.

"Under normal circumstance, the error wouldn't happen," Zapotosky said. "Special elections are just that - special. It was confusing and it should be about preserving the integrity of the process even if it costs extra money."

Gov. Ed Rendell decided to hold the special election on the same day as the primary to save money.

The special election was necessitated by the unexpected death of U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, earlier this year. Critz formerly worked for Murtha.

The district includes all of Greene County and portions of eight other counties, including Fayette.

Larry Blosser, director of the Fayette County election bureau, said having a special election on the same day as a primary hasn't occurred since he has worked for the county election bureau since 1984.

Blosser said that Tuesday was "just a hectic day for the judge (of elections)."

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1220/2010/may/20/fayette-ballot-snafu-probed.html

U.S. Rep. Clyburn: Election & Voting Machine Fraud Greene Win!

During a segment on MSNBC's Morning Joe, United States Rep. James Clyburn was asked pointblank what he believed may have been done in the Alvin Greene Democrat Party Primary election to cause such an overwhelming win of a virtual unknown.

Clyburn agreed with the wording of the questions, responding he believed somebody was involved in paying Greene to run in the election, and he agreed when asked if voting machines were tampered with.

Yes, he said, he didn't know if it was Democrats or Republicans, somebody paid Greene and voting machines were tampered with...

Apparently, though Rep. Clyburn didn't specify who he believes may have paid Greene to run on Morning Joe, Clyburn wants a probe of the win and has indicated his belief in a conspiracy involving three candidates for the Democratic Primary in S.C...

Clyburn Alleges Conspiracy to Plant Candidates...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/clyburn_alvin_greene_not_only_suspicious_candidate.php

Rep. James Clyburn Wants a Probe of Alvin Greene's Win in S.C. Primary

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/09/jobless-army-vet-pulls-upset-will-oppose-jim-demint-in-south-ca/

clyburn Wants Investigation ... Scheme involving 3 Democratic Primary candidates ...

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/clyburn-calls-alvin-greene-a-plant-hopes-for-investigation.php

Viewpoint challenges claims Greene a 'Republican' plant
...Um. Here's the thing. Very few people, beyond Greene, his family and his friends, knew who he was or that he was even in the race (a claim that you can make about Rawl himself). And the masses certainly didn't know that he was black. So the plant argument, at least the one that we are most familiar with in South Carolina politics, just doesn't apply. Greene's race is irrelevant.

Even more damning, the reasons for why a secretive Republican cabal would pay Greene to run against Rawl simply aren't there. Rawl posed no challenge to U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint. None. In 2010, the era of the Tea Party, DeMint is untouchable.

And not only did DeMint have near-universal adoration on his side when it comes to Republican Party members, he also had a war chest that was substantially larger than Rawl's: $3.5 million to a little bit under $200,000.

As I've said it before, Rawl was defeated by money and marketing. He didn't have the money to compete.

Ask yourself this: Do you remember seeing a Rawl campaign sign? Do you remember seeing Rawl on the nightly news? Do you remember seeing anybody ever covering his campaign?

Exactly.

Rawl was as much of an non-entity as Greene. And Greene just won the luck of the draw.

And for those of you, like U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, who are unable to believe that Greene won because of random luck, may I suggest you pick up a copy of The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives Is Wrong. Mathematics don't lie.

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/HaireoftheDog/archives/2010/06/11/alvin-greene-race-and-plant-allegations-irrelevant

Net the Truth Online

Senator Schumer: People Want Government That Gives

United States Senator Charles Schumer, though speaking of his Democrat-base, gave us the reality of the difference between the current two-Party majority political philosophies, and that of our Founding Framers.

The Framers of the United States Constitution not only wanted a limited federal government, they wanted all matters not placed specifically in the domain of the federal government to be delegated to the states or to "the people."

Schumer obviously has not managed to grasp the meaning of the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution.

During a segment on Joe Scarborough's Country program, and without a response at all from Scarborough (a Republican), Schumer said:

"...Given a choice between a government doing something... and no government... people will choose a government doing something..."

Schumer added something along the lines of and people expect something from government, when they don't get it, they demand it... they want their share of the government... he then went on to attempt to bring in the Great Gulf Oil Spill and how the people want more regulation... more regulation is what the people want, Schumer said, and the Democrats are the clear choice for that.

Recent bill proposed by Sen. Schumer

http://schumer.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=325405&

Scarborough, for his part, again, as we've observed any number of times, in no way rejected the notion people wanted a government that 'gives' them 'something' rather than stay out of the affairs of people for the most part. Only rarely should we see the federal government 'giving' and 'doing' much because the federal government's powers are few and limited.

Nope, not a word from Scarborough.

He didn't even challenge Schumer on how the people want more regulation.

The federal regulations concerning off-shore oil drilling were and are already in place. Regulatory agencies which oversee the implementation of the regs failed miserably in the case of the pre-disaster of the Big Oil Spill.

The transcript will be posted as soon as it becomes available.

Net the Truth Online

Violation of PA Sunshine Law in Election Board Meeting

Posting at Vote PA message board highlights the kind of questions which must be asked anytime it is discovered that a potentially illegal meeting of an official board of county government may have been held in violation of the PA Sunshine Laws.

Net the Truth Online

Violation of PA Sunshine Law in Election Board Meeting

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VotePA/message/4679

Asking the questions for input here in hopes someone can answer before the Fayette Election Board holds an announced and advertised meeting next week.

Was the Fayette Election Board 'emergency meeting' held Election eve (Tues. May 18, 2010) (at an unknown time but prior to 11 pm) to determine what to do after an election judge mistakenly handed out two ballots to Primary voters registered as Republican and Democrat (special election ballots intended for registered Independents in addition to Primary election ballots which included the special election contest) in violation of the Pennsylvania Sunshine Law?

Who has the power to convene a meeting of the Election Board, without public notification, and who is able to attend the emergency meeting? And can an "investigation" be ordered within the emergency meeting that was unadvertised? And when did the "investigation" begin such as during the emergency meeting? Were any paper ballots reviewed during the emergency meeting?

It's unclear whether lawyers for all the candidates in the special election were informed of the situation that had occurred in the one local precinct and were invited to the unannounced emergency meeting and did or did not attend such an emergency meeting of the Election Board.

What action was taken after 1 PM regarding the eScan voting system upon notification of the situation by the precinct Election Judge?

Was the eScan decommissioned and/or reset or both? What happened to the memory card?

How is it possible 3 different news articles are at variance on the number of voters who may have voted twice in the special election contest? Are at variance on the number of duplicate paper ballots, etc.

And where are the accurate numbers for how many voters the eScan private voter count recorded as utilizing the eScan prior to the error of duplicate ballots being discovered?

Thank you for any help you can provide. Any recommendations on whether or not there are grounds to proceed would be appreciated.

PA Citizen Mom

Note: the following PA Independent article dated May 18, 2010 175 People Voted Twice in Fayette County was available the eve of the Election (via grassrootspa link) and did not include mention that an emergency Fayette Election Board meeting had been held Tuesday ... unknown time... the article quotes the election board solictor who says a meeting of the Election Board will be held...

No announcement is made that an emergency meeting will be held Tuesday, Election Day. In addition, the PA Independent article entitled 175 People Voted Twice in Fayete County notes comment by the director of the Fayette Election Bureau regarding how the situation was handled after it was discovered:

After realizing she had made a mistake, Ms. Lilley contacted Larry Blosser, the director of the Fayette County Election Bureau, who told her to secure all the ballots that had been cast and re-set the electronic voting machines.

"We've secured the ballots that were voted on the e-scan machine," said Sheryl Heid, election bureau solicitor for Fayette County. "We're going to hold them separately and the election board will hold a meeting to decide what to do with them."

http://paindependent.com/todays_news/detail/175-people-voted-twice-in-fayette-county

Meanwhile, the Tribune Review article includes mention on Wed. May 19, 2010 in the topic sentence that Fayette County Commissioners and Common Pleas Court Judge Nancy Vernon convened an emergency meeting last night ...

The interesting thing is one of the 3 county commissioners was not a member of the election board as he was seeking a slot on the Dem. Party Committee... a local attorney had been appointed to serve on the Election Board for the time being. It is unclear then if the full election board met with the attorney or without, or whether two county commissioners and Judge Vernon convened the meeting.

The title of the Trib article is also notable: Duplicate Ballots Investigated

Meanwhile, in its article on the matter published May 19, 2010, the Herald Standard article includes mention of the meeting which was "called" wherein presumably, Judge Nancy Vernon"ordered a count of the of paper ballots cast at one North Union Township precinct late Tuesday to determine how many voters potentially cast more than one ballot for the special election for the 12th Congressional District."

It is astonishing that 3 different articles over the course of a day issue far different numbers about how many people may have voted twice, or cast duplicate votes, or however the situation is worded.

Who issued the information to the three different news outlets and why is there a discrepancy of numbers from the very beginning and including follow-up articles published Thursday, May 20, 2010?

It would be too confusing to post the May 20 articles... so here are these...

PA Citizen Mom

175 People Voted Twice in Fayette County
Poll worker mistakenly gave voters two ballots
MAY 18, 2010 | by ERIC BOEHMA mistake at a polling place in Fayette County allowed 175 people to double-vote this morning in the special election for the Pennsylvania 12th Congressional district.

Amber Lilley, judge of elections at the North Union Township fourth precinct, said she mistakenly thought she was supposed to give out two ballots to each individual in her precinct during today's election because the election served as both a primary election and a special election to fill the Congressional seat vacated by the death of John Murtha.

"There were paper ballots, and there were ballots just for the independent voters for the special election, and my understanding, which was mistaken, was that those were special ballots for the special election," she said.

Ms. Lilley said she eventually realized her mistake, but by then 178 people had already voted. Of that total, 120 were Republicans, 55 were Democrats, and three were Independents.

Because of her mistake, the 175 Republicans and Democrats were able to vote twice, once on their full ballot that included the primary and special election, and once on the special election ballot that was supposed to be used only for independent voters.

After realizing she had made a mistake, Ms. Lilley contacted Larry Blosser, the director of the Fayette County Election Bureau, who told her to secure all the ballots that had been cast and re-set the electronic voting machines.

"We've secured the ballots that were voted on the e-scan machine," said Sheryl Heid, election bureau solicitor for Fayette County. "We're going to hold them separately and the election board will hold a meeting to decide what to do with them."

Ms. Lilley said she was elected to the position of election supervisor in November and was not even aware she had won the election until February. Though she took responsibility for the mix-up, she said her training consisted of little more than watching some videos and basic directions from the state Election Commission.

Ms. Lilley is registered as a Democrat, but a Republican poll watcher was also present at the location throughout the day. Ms. Lilley said the poll watcher also misunderstood the directions on the ballot.

The special election in the 12th Congressional district is between Democrat Mark Critz, Republican Tim Burns, and Libertarian Demo Agoris.

Eric Boehm is a reporter for PA Independent. He can be reached at Eric@PAIndependent.com

http://paindependent.com/todays_news/detail/175-people-voted-twice-in-fayette-county

Duplicate ballots investigated

By Rich Cholodofsky
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Fayette County commissioners and Common Pleas Court Judge Nancy Vernon convened an emergency meeting last night to decide how to handle possible duplicate ballots cast by voters in one Uniontown area precinct.

Elections officials said that voters using paper ballots early in the day at the North Union VFW were erroneously given two ballots to cast, a situation that may skew results in the special election between Democrat Mark Critz and Republican Tim Burns to fill the remainder of the 12th Congressional District term of the late Rep. John Murtha.

Fayette County Elections Bureau solicitor Sheryl Heid said the elections board was still meeting at 11 p.m. and had not reached a decision about how the ballots would be counted.

As many as 223 voters may have cast duplicate ballots, Heid said

The voting error occurred when a first-time judge of elections erroneously passed out two sets of paper ballots to voters until about 1:15 p.m.

Fayette County voters have the option of casting votes on an electronic machine or on paper ballots. Heid said that Democrat and Republican voters were given primary ballots as well as a secondary paper ballot for the special election that was only to be passed out to independent voters who cannot participate in the primary.

Although those duplicate votes were scanned and tabulated, they were immediately removed from the tallies, Heid said.

"We've taken steps to isolate the votes," Heid said.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_681829.html

Judge orders count of paper ballots after possible duplicate votes
May 19, 2010 01:32 AM

TEXT SIZE
By: AMY REVAK
Fayette County Judge Nancy D. Vernon ordered a count of paper ballots cast at one North Union Township precinct late Tuesday to determine how many voters potentially cast more than one ballot for the special election for the 12th Congressional District.

A hearing on the issue was called after it was discovered that Judge of Elections Amber Lilley had handed out duplicate paper ballots for the special election, according to Sheryl Heid, solicitor for the Fayette County Election Bureau.

The mistake was discovered and corrected after 178 people had voted at the North Union Township No. 4 polling place, and the machine was shut down after 223 people had voted. Because voters have the option of either using the e-Slate electronic voting machine or using a paper ballot that is scanned on the e-Scan machine, it was unknown exactly how many voters used paper ballots, and therefore could have overvoted, Heid said.

Heid explained that Lilley handed out two paper ballots to each of those voting at the polling place, which could have led to some people voting twice in the special election.

Advertisement

The special election includes the Democratic candidate Mark Critz, the Republican candidate Tim Burns and the Libertarian candidate Demo Agoris. Heid said the Democratic and Republican ballots had the special election listed on them, and the other ballots that listed only the special election should have only gone to voters of other political parties. She said three people in other parties voted in the precinct, all by paper ballot.

Larry Blosser, head of the election bureau, said a count of the paper ballots could be made to determine how many people possibly voted twice for the special election.

Vernon ordered the election board, which includes Commissioners Vincent Zapotosky and Angela M. Zimmerlink and attorney Mark Mehalov, along with attorney James T. Davis, representing Critz and attorney Gary Altman, representating Burns, to count the ballots and then report to court, when she would make a decision.

The count and decision were unavailable late Tuesday.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1220/2010/may/19/judge-orders-count-of-paper-ballots-after-possible-duplicate-votes.html

Still astonishing and unexplained how different news reports can contain such a difference of how many voters used the eScan voting system in Fayette County in one local precinct where an election judge admittedly made an error and handed Primary voters registered as Republican or Democrat two ballots for the District 12 Special Election contest...

Also unclear: How were attorneys for candidates informed of the emergency meeting of the Election Board which was convened on Tuesday May 18, 2010 when the public was not informed so the public could attend? And is convening the emergency meeting without notification to the public a violation of the state's PA Sunshine Laws?

Herald-Standard May 20, 2010

During a hearing Tuesday night, Vernon ordered that the election board, which includes Commissioners Vincent Zapotosky and Angela M. Zimmerlink as well as attorney Mark Mehalov, along with attorney James T. Davis, representing the Democratic Party and the Mark Critz campaign and attorney Gary Altman, representing the Republican Party and the Tim Burns campaign, to make an official tabulation of the paper ballots.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1631/2010/may/20/fayette-ballot-snafu-probed.html


PA Citizen Mom

Fayette ballot snafu probed
May 20, 2010 01:20 AM
TEXT SIZE 
By: AMY REVAK
Herald Standard
The fate of dozens of extra ballots incorrectly cast at one Fayette County precinct for the special election for the 12th Congressional District will be decided by the Fayette County Election Board and then returned to the court of Judge Nancy D. Vernon.
The mistake, which was halted after nearly 100 voters cast paper ballots at the North Union Township Precinct 4 polling place, occurred when first-time Judge of Elections Amber Lilley incorrectly handed out duplicate ballots for the special election.
Only members of political parties other than Democratic or Republican were supposed to receive a ballot with only the special election candidates on it. However, Lilley handed out both the separate sheet with the special election candidates and the Democratic and Republican ballots, which also had the special election candidates on it, to all voters.
During a hearing Tuesday night, Vernon ordered that the election board, which includes Commissioners Vincent Zapotosky and Angela M. Zimmerlink as well as attorney Mark Mehalov, along with attorney James T. Davis, representing the Democratic Party and the Mark Critz campaign and attorney Gary Altman, representing the Republican Party and the Tim Burns campaign, to make an official tabulation of the paper ballots.
Critz defeated Burns by more than 10,000 votes throughout the district, according to unofficial results. A third candidate, Libertarian Demo Agoris finished a very distant third.
The count of the paper ballots cast at the precinct was made after 10 p.m. and then returned to Vernon, who ruled that the election board make a further determination of the paper ballots in question and return to Vernon for further consideration.
Zapotosky said Wednesday that a review of the paper ballots in question revealed that a total of 93 Republicans and Democrats were given duplicate ballots for the special election and three people of other parties also were given ballots.
Advertisement

Zapotosky said, upon reviewing the ballots, it was determined that all the Democrats and Republicans voted on both the ballot they were supposed to use and the extra ballot. A determination must be made on what to do with the extra ballots, which would include three that were cast by people of other parties. There is no way to know which candidate or candidates the voters selected.
Zapotosky said there was not one "under vote," meaning that every voter that was given two ballots voted for the special election on each of them.
He said the election board will likely meet next week to determine how to handle the ballots in question.
Zapotosky said there should not have been a special election on the day of the primary.
"Under normal circumstance, the error wouldn't happen," Zapotosky said. "Special elections are just that - special. It was confusing and it should be about preserving the integrity of the process even if it costs extra money."
Gov. Ed Rendell decided to hold the special election on the same day as the primary to save money.
The special election was necessitated by the unexpected death of U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, earlier this year. Critz formerly worked for Murtha.
The district includes all of Greene County and portions of eight other counties, including Fayette.
Larry Blosser, director of the Fayette County election bureau, said having a special election on the same day as a primary hasn't occurred since he has worked for the county election bureau since 1984.
Blosser said that Tuesday was "just a hectic day for the judge (of elections)."

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1631/2010/may/20/fayette-ballot-snafu-probed.html

Notice the Tribune's lead sentence. When did Judge Nancy Vernon order the county election board to determine anything? Was it Tuesday May 18, 2010 during the emergency meeting of the Election Board (which was not announced publicly)?

Was the order verbally issued during the Tues. May 18, 2010 emergency meeting of the Election Board and then drawn up the next day?

What are the legalities of a hearing of the Election Board or meeting whichever is accurate as there is a discrepancy in the news reports occurring with only representatives of some candidates in the special election being present and not others? What are the legalities of same as above when the public is not apprised of the emergency meeting before the meeting occurs and within the specified requirements of the PA Sunshine Law, and etc.

Note the discrepancy in the two articles about this:

Tribune Review "...as not all Democratic and Republican voters handed the duplicate form cast two votes. "

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_682079.html


Herald Standard "...it was determined that all the Democrats and Republicans voted on both the ballot they were supposed to use and the extra ballot."

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1631/2010/may/20/fayette-ballot-snafu-probed.html

Which is it. Did all Democrats and Republicans handed the duplicate form cast two votes, or not all Democrats and Republicans handed both ballots voted both ballots?

It's one or the other, isn't it? Why is the Fayette Election Board Chairman, Vincent Zapotosky stating something obviously at variance with what Board Solicitor Sheryl Heid states? Who is correct?

And note the discrepancies in the amount of Republican and Democrat voters

93 Republicans and Democrats

Zapotosky said Wednesday that a review of the paper ballots in question revealed that a total of 93 Republicans and Democrats were given duplicate ballots for the special election and three people of other parties also were given ballots.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1631/2010/may/20/fayette-ballot-snafu-probed.html

Oops, not according to Solicitor Heid in the Tribune article - more than 93 ballots were handed out a combine 64 Democrats and 33 Republicans with 93 of the 97 being voted.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_682079.html

Were any determinations made during the emergency meeting of the Election Board Tuesday May 18, 2010? Who was present?

PA Citizen Mom

Herald Standard

Zapotosky said Wednesday that a review of the paper ballots in question revealed that a total of 93 Republicans and Democrats were given duplicate ballots for the special election and three people of other parties also were given ballots.

Zapotosky said, upon reviewing the ballots, it was determined that all the Democrats and Republicans voted on both the ballot they were supposed to use and the extra ballot. A determination must be made on what to do with the extra ballots, which would include three that were cast by people of other parties. There is no way to know which candidate or candidates the voters selected.

Zapotosky said there was not one "under vote," meaning that every voter that was given two ballots voted for the special election on each of them.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1631/2010/may/20/fayette-ballot-snafu-probed.html

Tribune Review

Election bureau Solicitor Sheryl Heid said the mistake was discovered after a first-time judge of elections at the North Union VFW passed out Democratic, Republican and non-party paper ballots to 64 Democrats, 33 Republicans and three other voters registered as independent or with no party affiliation.


Heid said it appears that 93 non-party paper ballots were incorrectly cast, as not all Democratic and Republican voters handed the duplicate form cast two votes.

Only the three non-party voters should have been given that particular ballot, as the general primary ballot included the special election.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_682079.html

PA Citizen Mom

Report ordered on Fayette ballot mix-up

By Mary Pickels
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Thursday, May 20, 2010


Fayette County Judge Nancy Vernon on Wednesday ordered the county election board to determine the proper number of votes cast for candidates in the special election in the 12th Congressional District and to determine if some votes were duplicated with paper ballots.

The board must file a report on its final determination with the judge.

Vernon's order followed an emergency meeting convened after Tuesday's primary, after it was learned that more than 90 voters using paper ballots early in the day at one North Union precinct were erroneously given two ballots to cast in the special election among Democrat Mark Critz, Republican Tim Burns and Libertarian Demo Agoris to fill the remainder of the late John Murtha's term.

Burns conceded victory to Critz on Tuesday night.

Election bureau Solicitor Sheryl Heid said the mistake was discovered after a first-time judge of elections at the North Union VFW passed out Democratic, Republican and non-party paper ballots to 64 Democrats, 33 Republicans and three other voters registered as independent or with no party affiliation.

Heid said it appears that 93 non-party paper ballots were incorrectly cast, as not all Democratic and Republican voters handed the duplicate form cast two votes.

Only the three non-party voters should have been given that particular ballot, as the general primary ballot included the special election.

Fayette County voters have the option of casting votes on an electronic machine or on paper ballots.

After Tuesday's discovery, the e-Scan paper ballot and e-Slate electronic voting machines at that precinct were replaced and voting continued.

"We literally have all of those pieces of paper," Heid said yesterday.

The paper ballots were scanned and secured before being delivered by the sheriff's department to the election bureau, Heid said.

"The seal was broken only at the judge's order," Heid said. "We preserved the ballots to preserve the integrity of the election."

Possible duplicate votes have not yet been included in the final tallies, Heid said.

Paper votes cast by those individuals for all other open positions will be included in the final tally.

"Everything except for their vote for the 12th Congressional District," Heid said. "Those are the only votes that will not be added in at this point."

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_682079.html

Fayette ballot snafu probed
May 20, 2010 01:20 AM

TEXT SIZE
By: AMY REVAK
Herald Standard
The fate of dozens of extra ballots incorrectly cast at one Fayette County precinct for the special election for the 12th Congressional District will be decided by the Fayette County Election Board and then returned to the court of Judge Nancy D. Vernon.

The mistake, which was halted after nearly 100 voters cast paper ballots at the North Union Township Precinct 4 polling place, occurred when first-time Judge of Elections Amber Lilley incorrectly handed out duplicate ballots for the special election.

Only members of political parties other than Democratic or Republican were supposed to receive a ballot with only the special election candidates on it. However, Lilley handed out both the separate sheet with the special election candidates and the Democratic and Republican ballots, which also had the special election candidates on it, to all voters.

During a hearing Tuesday night, Vernon ordered that the election board, which includes Commissioners Vincent Zapotosky and Angela M. Zimmerlink as well as attorney Mark Mehalov, along with attorney James T. Davis, representing the Democratic Party and the Mark Critz campaign and attorney Gary Altman, representing the Republican Party and the Tim Burns campaign, to make an official tabulation of the paper ballots.

Critz defeated Burns by more than 10,000 votes throughout the district, according to unofficial results. A third candidate, Libertarian Demo Agoris finished a very distant third.

The count of the paper ballots cast at the precinct was made after 10 p.m. and then returned to Vernon, who ruled that the election board make a further determination of the paper ballots in question and return to Vernon for further consideration.

Zapotosky said Wednesday that a review of the paper ballots in question revealed that a total of 93 Republicans and Democrats were given duplicate ballots for the special election and three people of other parties also were given ballots.

Zapotosky said, upon reviewing the ballots, it was determined that all the Democrats and Republicans voted on both the ballot they were supposed to use and the extra ballot. A determination must be made on what to do with the extra ballots, which would include three that were cast by people of other parties. There is no way to know which candidate or candidates the voters selected.

Zapotosky said there was not one "under vote," meaning that every voter that was given two ballots voted for the special election on each of them.

He said the election board will likely meet next week to determine how to handle the ballots in question.

Zapotosky said there should not have been a special election on the day of the primary.

"Under normal circumstance, the error wouldn't happen," Zapotosky said. "Special elections are just that - special. It was confusing and it should be about preserving the integrity of the process even if it costs extra money."

Gov. Ed Rendell decided to hold the special election on the same day as the primary to save money.

The special election was necessitated by the unexpected death of U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, earlier this year. Critz formerly worked for Murtha.

The district includes all of Greene County and portions of eight other counties, including Fayette.

Larry Blosser, director of the Fayette County election bureau, said having a special election on the same day as a primary hasn't occurred since he has worked for the county election bureau since 1984.

Blosser said that Tuesday was "just a hectic day for the judge (of elections)."

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1631/2010/may/20/fayette-ballot-snafu-probed.html

See Vote PA Message Board

Fayette Election Voter Count Different per Reports

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VotePA/message/4680

More

To clarify, if the Dem and Rep votes were the same on both and accounted for, as
suggested, the 3 Indie votes could be determined. If they are the same as well,
let's say the Independent candidate is chosen, then it becomes known how 3
identifiable voters voted.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VotePA/message/4684

Re: Fayette Election Voter Count Different per Reports


Thanks for your input, Joy. The privacy of individual voters cannot be
compromised though. so no method can be employed which could determine in any
way how 3 out of any number of votes were cast in an election.

In fact, that's why I'm puzzling over the discrepancy between what the Chairman
of the Election Board states as noted below, not to repeat, and what the
Solicitor of the Board allows, there were undervotes according to the Solicitor.

Only if there were undervoted ballots among the non-Party ballots could it never
be determined how any of the 3 Independents voted.

Because if all Republicans and Democrats who received both ballots, voted both
ballots, then a comparison as you suggest be made, could be made, and it might
be very possible if the 3 independents' votes could be segregated and all the
same, to determine how they voted.

Thanks though

PA Citizen Mom

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VotePA/message/4683

The previous was a reply to poster at Vote PA

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VotePA/message/4681