Replies

If you have read the main body of the thread before, you might want to skim over it because there are a few changes and variations, and of course the list of links has grown considerably.

VOTER FRAUD PING!

If you want on or off my voter fraud ping list, just ask.

Alert to new thread.

great googly moogly! you have been burning the midnight oil on this, haven't you? bookmarked and bumped! for later perusal. thanks for pinging me.
demosthenes

Oh how I admire you. Please put me on the list and I'll pray that I'll follow through with action because I feel so strongly about this.

As December 7 looms near here in Louisiana, we all need to be doubly vigilant of the....

...Landrieu Constituency.

Great thread, but a little slow on crappy dial-up. Worth it though. I think the media attention (limited as is was) on fraud in the recent election may have stifled some from the error of their ways. Stay vigilant and good work sweetliberty!

Maine Ping!

Let me tell you, we kicked the snot out of the vote-fraudsters here in Alabama this year.

Our Republican Attorney General (Pryor) simply mailed out postcards to every "registered" voter.

Lo and behold, a plethora of those postcards were "returned to sender" by the postoffice. Well, you have to have a valid address to vote (i.e. live in state, live in a specified precinct, et al), so all of those "bad registrations" were REMOVED from our voter registration records. All of a sudden, the dead and the out-of-staters couldn't vote this year. Heck, some of the addresses were phoney to begin with (i.e. there is no house there and never was there so the whole Registration was a sham), but most were simply voters who had died or otherwise moved on.

There you have it, one entire level of vote-fraud stopped with a simple postcard.

Alabama now leads the nation in clearing up vote fraud (we beat Florida to it).

Just want to tell you....first, good morning; second, you've done another excellent job, sweetliberty. This is great. I like all the warnings, state and county, and all the links. This is truly an incredible amount of work. I know you've had lots of help, but you still deserve a great deal of thanks. Salute!

Very impressive work, sweetliberty!

Every conservative in the state of Vermont present and accounted for. All eleven of us.

FReepers Against Voter Fraud - (Thread 2)

Minnesota Ping.

-----------------------------

Please FReepmail me if you want on/off MN Ping.

Incredibly outstanding thread!!!!!! Thanks for the hard work!!!! This needs to go into a permanent reference file. I think our efforts and the efforts by the GOP against fraud was good for 1% and several close races. It scared the Rats from going "all the way".

We need to slowly ratchet up this campaign and make everyone know the Democrat party as the party of voter fraud and addicted to power.

Still reading great thread....and bookmarked!

Outstanding job, sweetliberty!

Remarkable body of work. Bookmarked for reference.

Thanks for the ping, MnM.

Please add me to any PING lists regarding this topic. Thanks.

You may want to check out votefraud.org as a possible source. It looks pretty good and I didn't see it above.

http://www.votefraud.org/home.html

Arizona:

The jury is still out on mail-in ballots. I think, if handled properly, it might help eliminate double voting, illegal alien voting, etc. Depends largely on the regristration process and control of the ballot process..

12/05/02

Next town election to be voted by mail.

Expected to increase voter participation, but some council members are cautious
Town officials plan to try out their first "mail-ballot election" in the spring when the only question on the ballot is expected to be a renewal of the town's franchise agreement with Arizona Public Service.
"It will be our first mail-in ballot too," Judy Swartz, APS franchise project manager, told the council Monday night. " ... it's a trial for us, just like for you, and we're excited to see what the results will be." After discussion among the council, it was determined the ballot will carry return postage, courtesy of APS.

The purpose of the franchise agreement is to allow APS to construct, maintain and operate the facilities necessary to serve the town and its citizens, Swartz said.

The franchise agreement also establishes a fee APS pays to the town for use of the town's right-of-way. In the past, this has amounted to 2 percent of APS's commercial and retail revenue in Florence, which last year was $124,076. The new agreement will add more classes of service to include irrigation and industrial - everything but street lights - to raise the town's fee slightly to an estimated $124,644.

Voter turnout to approve franchise agreements has been typically low in the 51 communities in which APS has such agreements, Swartz said. However, approval among the handful of voters showing up is typically high. "Seventy percent (of voters approving) is the lowest we've ever received," Swartz said. She said it's not unusual for 86 percent of voters to approve a franchise agreement.

Although the mail-in ballot is attractive for its convenience and potential for cost savings, council members had concerns.

"I don't think it's a good way to go," Vice Mayor Ty Morgan said. He said verifying the signature on the ballot against the signature on file with the County Recorder is apparently the only fraud protection.

Council member Tom Smith said he'd like to see this election done "as one experiment, not future voting." His own poll on Main Street found seven for and 62 against it, he said. "If it's for persons running for office, they're against it at this time."

Town Clerk Lisa Garcia said the council's approval would only cover this election, and if the town wishes to vote by mail in the future, it would require council approval again.

Council member Tom Rankin said, "It's the wave of the future," and if it leads to more people casting ballots, "we'd be crazy not to do it."

Council member Jerry Pomeroy asked how many people used mail-in ballots in the last Florence election. Garcia said she did not have that figure with her Monday night. Pomeroy said, "I think it's the wave of the future," and could "give more people the opportunity to vote. I personally hope we can eliminate the fraud thing."

Morgan asked, "Who all is doing it?"

Garcia said it has been done in Oregon, Colorado and Washington state. She wrote in a memo to the council that many jurisdictions have seen voter turnout increase in vote-by-mail elections. In Colorado, turnout has doubled and tripled. Thurston County, Wash., experienced a 152 percent increase over similar jurisdictions that still had polling place voting.

Garcia said the voter rolls are currently being purged of voters who have died or moved away, so the town will have a "precise and accurate" list of active voters to whom ballots will be mailed.

There will be no early ballots in this election; all ballots will be mailed 33 days prior to the election. Any voter uncomfortable with the process can still vote in person at Town Hall. Or they can bring in their mail-in ballots instead of mailing them.

The council voted 6-1, with Morgan voting no, to authorize the town clerk to conduct the May 2003 special election as a mail-ballot election.

Smith made a motion that the council reject a resolution requiring voters to pay for return postage, in keeping with APS' agreement to pay that postage. His motion passed unanimously.

Garcia noted in her memo that some believe requiring the voter to pay return postage amounts to an unconstitutional "poll tax." But a jurisdiction can avoid this issue by providing a drop-off point for ballots.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=6290023&BRD=1817&PAG=461&dept_id=222076&rfi=6

An older but very revelant article on Computerized voting. If you don't instinctivly like the idea of computerized voting, here are some good reasons for your hesitation.

The next president of the United States may not be chosen by the voters of the United States. Instead, he or she may be the choice of whomever controls or manipulates the computer systems that tally the votes. A single, Berkeley- based firm manufactures the software used in the machines that compile more than two-thirds of the nation's electronically-counted votes. Analysts describe the software as "spaghetti code," tangled strands of instructions indecipherable to outsiders. The experts say the code could be manipulated without detection. In fact, that may have happened already.

Vote fraud by computer is an even greater threat to local elections, the experts fear. With the entire system shrouded in mystery and absent of assurances that the voting process is tamper-proof, voters these days have more reason than ever to ask, "Does my vote count?"

"The whole damn thing is mind-boggling," says Ronnie Dugger, a Texas-based writer who investigates computerized elections. "They could steal the presidency." "Any use of computer technology is subvertable," Peter Neumann of the Menlo Park research firm SRI confirms. "The consensus is that elections can be rigged easily locally, but nationally takes a lot more work." However, Neumann says, the task of fixing a presidential election is "doable."

Election-rigging is a time-honored tradition in the US, from the days of New York's Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall to Chicago's legendary Mayor Richard Daley, who, historians believe, engineered President Kennedy's narrow margin of victory over Richard Nixon in the 1960 general election by stealing a key bloc of Illinois votes. And Lyndon Johnson's 1948 Senate victory, according to a biographer, was the result of vote-rigging in Southern Texas, where ballots were burned before a recount could take place.

As recently as 1988, a US Senate race in Florida, in which Republican Connie Mack defeated incumbent Buddy MacKay by just 35,000 out of four million votes, stirred deep suspicion though no fraud was ever proved. The question, however, is whether a well-executed computer vote fraud ever would yield enough evidence to constitute "proof."

Ballot boxes can be stolen and stuffed, mechanical lever machines can be tinkered with, paper ballots can be forged. But computers seem somehow more sinister. Though defended, as one would expect, by professionals in the field who insist that computers are less vulnerable to error and tampering than counting paper ballots, the invisibility of computer functions and the esoteric languages they use make that assurance difficult to accept.

"Computerized elections could be made more difficult to defraud than hand-counted elections, but they're not that way now," says Erik Nilsson, a Portland, Ore., software engineer who monitors computerized voting for the Palo Alto-based Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR). "If you believe election officials deliberately defraud elections, if you really believe people are that dishonest, then we're kind of stuck."

Nilsson echoes many computer professionals who say that the internal security/measures of most vote-counting systems make tampering difficult to detect. He is cautious on the.....(Follow the link for the rest of the story)

http://www.conspire.com/vote-fraud.html

This article was posted on Freerepublic at some point. Page links back to us! Anyone know the Author?

VOTE FRAUD AND THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE UNITED STATES

Note: This article first appeared as a post written by myself at Free Republic. I was surprised to learn that it was copied from Free Republic and re-posted at dozens of sites around the world. So, it seems only fitting that the article re-appear here at my own web site.

In recent months, I have posted a series of article on the deplorable and quite frankly hopeless financial situation the government of the United States is presently in due to reckless and outright irresponsible fiscal policy.

In summary, the combined state and federal debt of the United States now stands at $14 trillion. The United States, the world's largest creditor nation when Ronald Reagan took office, is now the world's largest debtor nation. The federal debt has doubled in the last 8 years, during what is reported to the American people as being a record setting economic boom. During this same supposed economic boom, the federal government looted your social security trust fund for another 3/4 of a trillion dollars to balance the books.

A serious doubt exists as to whether this huge debt and its crushing interest payments ($60,000 per taxpayer since 1960) are really the responsability of the taxpayers. Considering that the law under which this debt was incurred was voted into law before most of us were born, it's clear that the taxpayers have never really had a choice in the matter. Certainly the young people of today, not yet old enough to vote, have had no choice regarding the continuing payment of interest charges for a debt not of their making. To hand such a huge debt to our children and order them to pay it is indentured servitude at best, outright slavery at worst. No valid argument exists as to why children not yet old enough to vote are obliged to pay the debts of reckless government officials who held office before these children were born. The government decides that children shall be slaves to the debt, so slaves they shall be (until some courageous parents decide to put a stop to it).

Virtually every argument coming from those who would convince us to go on parting with our hard-earned money to pay this massive and impossible debt amounts to a claim that we always have the choice to vote for politicians who will somehow change things, and that the election of a particular candidate amounts to approval of his or her policies. Put simply, the fact that the public voted for Bill Clinton amounts to permission by the public for him to run the federal government deeper into debt and loot our retirement money, or so goes the theory.

One can easily challenge the logic behind such a claim. If, after all, the only candidates on the ballot intend to borrow more money, does that mean the voters approve of the eventual loans? Does the fact that Hitler won his election prove that all Germans approved of the death camps?

But beyond that simple fallacy lies a greater issue, one that until now has never been fully and properly examined. And that is whether the public really voted for those who are in power at all. Are our elections truly fair, or are they simply an illusion that the public approves of whatever despot has cheated his or her way to power.

Cuba is a good example. It's now generally aknowledged by historians that the elections which kept Batista in power were rigged. The CIA is known to have rigged elections in numerous countries around the world, to put in governments friendly to American interest, often detrimental to the people of those nations (often leading to revolution). A search through the news reports of elections around the world shows that a truly fair and honest election is indeed a rarity. It is therefore naive (not to mention racist) to start out assuming American elections are honest simply because we are Americans.

Are the elections in the United States fair and honest? A review of the facts is far less than rassuring.

Since 1964, right after John F. Kennedy was assasinated, vote tabulation for national elections has been handled not by the government, but by a private company lacking any official oversight at all. This company, which changes its name on a regular basis, is currently called "Voters News Service" and is located in New York City. This company is owned by a consortium of TV networks and wire services, which are in turn controlled by the CIA through its Operation MOCKINGBIRD. The TV networks will make a great show of being "first with the election results", but in reality all of them rely on the numbers sent to them by VNS, while seldom aknowledging its existance during the election coverage.

This is the voting process most in use in America today. A voter punches a card in the voting booth. That card is run through a computer at the local voting center, then that computer contacts computers at Voters News Service, or the precinct official telephones the numbers the computer shows him to Voters News Service, which then announces the results via the networks. Poll watchers are allowed to watch the voting booths, to gaurd against polling place electioneering, but in most precincts, the actual counting of the ballots is concealed from the public, and nobody is allowed to see inside the voting machines, or review the computer software that counts the ballots. 70% of all votes in America are counted by machine, and nobody, not private citizen, not local election official, nobody, is allowed to examine how it all works. The accuracy tests conducted on the voting machines before and after the actual election are utterly worthless, as they cannot detect fraud designed to fool the accuracy test itself. In 1988, when voting machines in Illinois were tested with tens of thousands of ballots instead of the few dozen normally used for the accuracy test, over 1/4 of the machines which had passed the standard accuracy test were found to have mistabulated the larger test vote results!

While researching the book, "VOTESCAM", the Collier brothers actually managed to videotape members of the League of Women voters forging ballots, and found hard evidence that Shouptronics and Printomatic vote machines were rigged in the Dade County Elections. In the Shouptronics, the wheels of the mechanical counters were shaved to cause miscounts. In the Printomatic machines, a malfunction revealed that the paper tape with the voting results had been pre-printed before the voting even started! The Colliers, along with attorney Ellis Rubin, handed the evidence to the assistant State Attorney for Florida. Sadly, that assistant State Attorney was Janet Reno, who in a pattern we have all become too familer with, killed the investigation. 60 Minutes taped a segment on the Dade County Vote Fraud, but never aired it.

Mandatory voter registration laws, such as "Motor voter" have been a boon to election fraud, generating registered voters who don't vote and whose names may be used to obtain absentee ballots. In the California election that unseated Bob Dornan following his efforts to investigate the Clinton White House, canvassers discovered that nearly half of the names registered to vote in the GOP election from 7 precincts simply did not exist. The California Attorney General's office was informed by the precinct worker, but again nothing was done. In 1998, almost 20,000 fraudulent voter registrations were discovered on the voting rolls, but were allowed to remain on the excuse that their removal in time for the election would cost too much!

The evidence for massive vote fraud in the United States uncovered by the Voting Integrity Project and organizations like it are ignored by the government, which has obviously been the beneficiary of such chicanery, and by the media, which is complicit in the fraud. When vote fraud was suspected in the 1996 Arizona Primary (the one that ended Pat Buchanon's winning streak after New Hampshire), the Arizona legislature passed a special law forbidding a recount for that one primary election only! When the Miami Magazine ran a story on the Dade County Vote Fraud, the magazine was purchased just one month later by the editor of the Miami News, Sylvan Meyer, who ordered that no further stories on vote fraud be published. When precinct workers in the 1974 Dade County elections discovered that the voting machines they were using were rigged, they walked off the job and refused to certify the election process. Police and fire fighters took over the polling duties. The next day, the Miami Herald reported the walk out, but not the reason. When the precinct workers went to the media to report the election rigging, the media ignored them. So did the local attorney general. So did the FBI. Citizens who tried to observe the next election were arrested.

Typical of the horror stories associated with the media-owned Voters News Service is what happened in Dubuque County Iowa during the 1996 Caucuses. The county's 41 precincts met in 41 classrooms at two high schools and voted on old fashioned paper ballots, which were then counted in full view of all present (including representives of the candidates), and the results posted for all to see and verify. The vote totals were then phoned directly into Voters News Service by the county chairman, again in full view of all participants that night. Buchanon won the county by a wide margin, garnering 870 votes. By next morning, Voters News Service had dropped Buchanon's vote total for that county down to 757 votes, a 13% drop. Buchanon lost Iowa by a much smaller margin than 13%.

The Iowa state GOP claimed it could do nothing about the problem; they were "in VNS' hands". VNS, despite the paper ballots proving Buchanon's 870 votes, refused to admit error and refused to change the results for the county. Needless to say, the question of whether Buchanon had had 13% of his votes shaved off in other Iowa counties, ones in which computerized vote machines meant there was no audit trail to check, was ignored. The fact that an obviously fraudulent vote had made it all the way through the system to be reported on national television was also ignored by the media. (Iowa is the state, it should be noted, where a columnist for Salon magazine was charged with vote fraud.)

The complicity by the law enforcement machinery of this nation is astounding. In one election in Boston, a judge declared 968 ballots which had been declared "blank" due to multiple punches to be valid, arbitrarily assigning most of the disputed votes to the incumbant candidate, thereby reversing his defeat. In a computer vote fraud case in West Virginia, an expert witness testifying for the plaintiff sat down at a CES voting machine provided by the defendants, studied it for a while, then with a single ballot card added 10,000 votes to one of the fictional candidates. The judge refused to allow the jury to see the demonstration and the charges were eventually dropped.

Only three states, California, Florida, and Michigan, have laws requiring that the voting machine source code be placed in escrow should it need to be examined after an election. None of those states have any means to verify that the source code placed in escrow is in fact the origin of the compiled code running on the machines election night, and in Michigan, the escrow is simply handled by the voting machine company itself with no overview by a state agency or public interest group.

All the voting machines used in the United States come from just three companies. The Presidents of two of them have been convicted of vote fraud and yet all state governments continue to do business (at very steep fees) with just these three companies. The largest of the three companies has direct access to 50% of the nation's votes. Nobody is allowed to inspect the machines, or watch as the vote totals are accumulated and counted, and there is no audit trail anywhere along the path from the voting machine to Voter's News Service, the private media-owned company that without any official oversight, tells us all what the election results are.

Most states have now passed laws requiring a challenge to election results to be filed within a few weeks of the election, far too short a time for anyone to properly determine if such a challenge is warrented.

Despite such an obvious inhibition, a Democrat who lost a legislative seat in the 1998 Hawaiian election did file a challange, claiming there was vote fraud. A quick audit showed that vote fraud involving absentee ballots had indeed occured, but mostly by the Democrat; who had cheated, but not enough to win. This scandal triggered public questions about several races, including that of the Democratic Governor, Ben Cayutano, who had been trailing his Republican challenger all during the election night, only to have a sudden surge of votes at the last second push him over the top. The governor offered to over-ride the state's two week filing deadline for election challenges and allow a full recount, then back-pedaled and made a full recount contingent on a "pre-audit". The "pre-audit" was assigned to the company which had run the election, along with a warning that if it turned out the election was flawed, their final payment would be withheld by the State of Hawaii. Needless to say the pre-audit found no errors in the election, and despite the urging of the Voter Integrity Project (which was conducting its own investigation) the full recount was canceled. The voting company, ES&S was again been awarded the voting contractr for the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections, without any open bidding.

Who chooses what government we live under? Those who cast the votes, or as Stalin observed, those who count them? Do We The People pick those who govern us, or does a private company, owned by the CIA controlled media, and operating without any public oversight? Have We The People consented by vote to bear the $14 trillion burden of a government's reckless fiscal policy, or was that consent and that vote fraudulently obtained?

Just think about all it really means if the elections are being rigged on a massive scale.

It means that the contract between ruler and ruled is broken. The government does not govern with the consent of the governed, it rules by treachery and deception. The crown it wears is a stolen one, usurped from the people by three voting machine companies and one media owned results-announcer totally beyond review and reproach.

So, now we come back to the issue of government debt and who is really responsible for it. If, as appears to be the case, our elections are routinely being rigged, then it cannot be argued that We The People either chose, or approved of, those officials who borrowed trillions of dollars without our permission and sought to enslave us to that debt.

In an atmosphere of doubt about the validity of the voting process, it cannot be assumed that the American people have actually voted for or approved of any of the government's actions and policies for the last 35 years. That includes a couple of wars and some $14 trillion in debt, and the $60,000 in interest payments alone each taxpayer has had to fork over since the 60s.

In light of the numerous incidents of vote fraud uncovered through the years and the quite obvious stonewall on the subject by the officials who benefit from rigged elections and the media that at least helps in the rigging, it is dangerous to assume that American elections are honest. The burden of proof must lie with VNS and the voting machine companies to prove their honesty.

In an atmosphere of doubt about the validity of the voting process, it appears that the entire voting process is a sham, a trick to fool the American people into accepting whatever is done to them by creating the illusion that the people somehow voted for and approved of whatever is being done. That's how Batista fooled the Cuban people. That's how the USSR fooled the Soviet citizens. And that's how the American government fools us.

Do We The People owe that $14 trillion? No, we do not. It was borrowed without our permission. No citizen agreed to repay that money.

Those government officials who borrowed that money and intend that We The People should be forced to repay it can no longer do so on the assumption that they rule with the consent of those who vote.

The best that can be said is that they rule with the consent of those who count the vote.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE3/

This is one I missed....Unbelievable!

Reno Blocks Effort to Stop Vote Fraud
Chuck Noe, NewsMax.com
Saturday, Nov. 2, 2002
Former Attorney General Janet Reno launched a full-scale legal action Friday in Miami to prevent an independent committee from monitoring Tuesday's elections.
Reno, acting as a plaintiff and represented by Al Gore's 2000 election lawyer Kendall Coffey, sought and received an emergency injunction to prevent The Emergency Committee to Stop Bill McBride from sending independent poll watchers to precincts in Miami-Dade.

A "liberal Democrat" judge sided with Reno and banned the organization's poll watchers from trying to curb Florida's notorious election fraud.

Miami-Dade Judge Eleanor Schockett decreed Friday that The Emergency Committee to Stop Bill McBride may not supply 456 poll watchers in Miami-Dade County.

Her reason? Merely because Democrats claimed the group might disrupt the election.

'Blindsided'

"We were blindsided by this. We were never even served officially," said Mark Goodrich, political coordinator of The Emergency Committee to Stop Bill McBride.

In an exclusive interview, Goodrich told NewsMax.com that he received a voice mail at 7:30 p.m. Thursday telling him to be in court at 10:30 a.m. Friday.

Without being given reason to believe he needed legal representation, Goodrich had no attorney present and was sandbagged.

"Janet Reno's the plaintiff, Kendall Coffey – Al Gore's lawyer – is the lead lawyer, and there was little old me, getting thrown out of her [Schockett's] office," Goodrich said.

"This is a liberal Democrat judge who's retiring, who said as soon as she sat down at the bench, 'I don't know anything about election law; you're going to have to bear with me.' She's a bankruptcy judge who wrote a new law for herself today," Goodrich fumed.

According to a 1986 ruling by the state board of elections, poll watchers could include political action committees, Goodrich said. "She totally disregarded it."

His group plans to appeal the judge's decision Monday.

[Editor's Note: The Emergency Committee to Stop Bill McBride has an urgent letter to you. Please read it – Click Here.]

Reno and Rep. Carrie Meek, D-Fla., "had said in their complaint that GOP officials unfairly benefited from new rules the Democrats did not learn of until it was too late to submit forms," the Associated Press reported Friday.

Goodrich believes Reno is acting partly on McBride's behalf, "because she knows we are a serious organization, and partly because it's payback for us opposing her in the primary."

Previously, The Emergency Committee was called "Americans for [Jeb] Bush" and led a massive effort to defeat Reno in the Democrat primary.

The Stop McBride committee has no affiliation with the campaign of Republican Gov. Jeb Bush, he said. Still, the organization, which "has over 2,000 volunteers on Election Day to guard our rights," draws from Republicans and conservatives who would like to see Bush re-elected.

Friday's ruling has energized the volunteers, Goodrich told NewsMax.com. He said his organization has been flooded with calls from media and supporters.

[Editor's Note: The Emergency Committee to Stop Bill McBride has an urgent letter to you. Please read it – Click Here.]

Unintended Result

"This is motivating more people." Some volunteers plan protests at campaign appearances Saturday by Bill Clinton and Monday by Gore, he said.

Goodrich said his organization was still moving ahead with a massive get-out-the-vote effort, with phone banks and door-to-door canvassing. He still plans to field poll watchers.

"If the judge overrules them, we go to work Tuesday," he said.

No Repeat of 2000

Stop McBride hopes to prevent the sort of abuses that marred the 2000 election. In Democrat-ruled Miami-Dade, government employees made "efforts to suppress the vote in Republican precincts," he said. Examples he cited:

"They were telling people in line at 7 o'clock [p.m.] they had to leave," but people already in line are allowed by law to vote.

People who had no voter registration card were turned away, but the law calls for a provisional vote to be cast.

People who didn't know how to use the machines were not allowed to have someone help them, which the law permits.
[Editor's Note: The Emergency Committee to Stop Bill McBride has an urgent letter to you. Please read it -- Click Here.] In Democrat precincts, the story was far different, Goodrich recalled.

"People voted two and three times."

The Democrats shipped in voters from outside the county.

He recalled news accounts of Democrats ordering frightened, confused Haitian immigrants to vote for Gore and other Democrats.
"They were cooking the books. As to what extent, it's undefinable."

Goodrich had one final remark for Reno, Gore, Coffey, Meek, McBride and company:

"What are they afraid of? What is it they don't want us to see?"

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/11/1/194422.shtml