Here’s a study that should blow the minds of every sane and patriotic citizen, especially
as we approach this fall’s elections (or, to be more accurate, “elections”). It’s not for
partisans of either stripe, since neither party wants the rest of us, or anyone, to talk
about election fraud (although it’s the Democrats, primarily, who keep on getting screwed).
The study comes from the Election Defense Alliance (EDA), whose experts scrupulously
studied the results of the Scott Brown/Martha Coakley contest for the Senate seat of
Teddy Kennedy back in January. What they’ve found is doubly staggering:
First, the EDA discovered that there were no checks whatever on the voting process in that
race–a voting process largely electronic: no exit polls, no systematic audit, no spot-checks
of the count, no examination of a single ballot stored in the opscan equipment, and, as usual,
no examination of a single memory card, or of the computer code used to direct the counting.
And so the vote was totally controlled by Diebold/Premier and ES&S, the companies that made
all the machines in Massachusetters, and LHS, the “highly secretive” outfit that programmed
and serviced most of the opscans. All three are private companies, whose records clearly indicate
a heavy bias toward the GOP.
Second, EDA also discovered–on the basis of their careful scrutiny of the 65,000 ballots that
had been hand-counted–strong evidence that Coakley may have been the actual winner
in that race; or let’s just say that Brown apparently could not have won if all the ballots had
been counted in the open:
“Where votes were observably counted by hand, the Democrat Martha Coakley defeated the
Republican Scott Brown by a margin of 2.8%; where votes were counted unobservably and
secretly by machine, Brown defeated Coakley by a margin of 5.2%.”
The study goes on to refute the various rationalizations that are always used to explain
such bald anomalies away. And it also notes, correctly, that the media all but universally
proclaimed Brown’s “upset victory” a “sign” of the Tea-Baggers’ electoral prowess–
even though there was no evidence that Brown had won, beyond the say-so of those
So what we have here–and not just in Massachusetts–is a wholly faith-based voting
system, and a political establishment (both parties and the media) inclined to swallow anything,
as long as it advantages the right.
If you do care about this issue, and the integrity of our elections this November, please
send this report to everyone you know, and agitate for its discussion by the press. And
if you have a couple bucks to spare, or know someone who does, please do what you
can do to help fund EDA, without whose work there is no hope of salvaging, or realizing,
3 Comments to “Did Scott Brown really win in Massachusetts? (MUST-READ)”
“While We Were Sleeping”
Orwell Rolls In His Grave, featuring MCM – Buy the DVD
About News From Underground
News From Underground is a daily e-news service run by Mark Crispin Miller, a Professor of Culture and Communication at NYU. It is based on his belief that academics, like reporters, have a civic obligation to help keep the people well-informed, so that American democracy might finally work.
If you'd like to receive updates delivered to your inbox daily, sign up for News From Underground Alerts:
Help News From Underground!
Message from Mark: "I am a one-man operation, although assisted greatly by some volunteers, and, now and then, by people paid by others for one-time projects. There is no shortage of skilled, dedicated folks out there who want to help me. There is, however, nothing I can pay them with, unless you decide you can contribute something."
Please donate via the PayPal button above or via PayPal by email to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Please HELP FUND this documentary on JFK’s assassination!
- Talkin’ World War One Blues…
- How Australia plans to keep its vaccinated children safe from illnesses that they can’t catch
- On the mass delusion now afflicting liberals (and putting all of us at risk)
- There’s actually more evidence in Pizzagate than there is in “Russia-gate.”
- Forbidden Bookshelf on
- Contact Lou Dobbs on
- Forbidden Bookshelf on
- Top US spooks see NO “conclusive evidence” of Russian hacking in Election 2016 on
- How blaming Trump’s “election” on the Russians could force Hillary on us after all—and end US democracy for good… on
- The strange death of Nancy Schaefer (two items)
- Forbidden Bookshelf
- Please HELP FUND this documentary on JFK's assassination!
- There's actually more evidence in Pizzagate than there is in "Russia-gate."
- How NYU squeezes billions from its students—and where that money goes
- Thom Hartmann
- Democratic Undergroud
- Online Journal
- Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
- Veterans for Common Sense
- William Betz
- alias Bruce
- Mainstream Baptist
- Cody Lyon
- The Existentialist Cowboy
- Media Matters
- The International Human Press
- Election Defense Alliance
- Writers Voice
- Early America
- Barry Gordon
- Citizens for Legitimate Government
- The Rude Pudit
- t r u t h o u t
- Words of Power
- History Unfolding
Need a bigger font size?
- Your link could be here too, contact us for pricing details.