21 votes

Retired NSA Analyst Says GOP Is Stealing Elections

--World View with Denis Campbell, Editor-in-Chief of UK Progressive Magazine, joins us to discuss the breaking story that a retired NSA analyst believes to have proven the Republican Party is committing election fraud.


UK Progressive: Why is Mitt Romney so confident?

In states where the winner will be decided by less than 10%, of the vote he already knows he will win. This is no tinfoil hat conspiracy. It’s a maths problem. And mathematics showed changes in actual raw voting data that had no statistical correlation other than programmable computer fraud. This computer fraud resulted in votes being flipped from Democrat to Republican in every federal, senatorial, congressional and gubernatorial election since 2008 (thus far) and in the 2012 primary contests from other Republicans to Mitt Romney.

This goes well beyond Romney’s investment control in voting machine maker Hart Intercivic and Diebold’s close ties to George W. Bush. Indeed all five voting machine companies have very strong GOP fundraising ties, yet executives (including the candidate’s son Tagg Romney) there is no conflict between massively supporting one party financially whilst controlling the machines that record and count the votes.

A retired NSA analyst has spent several sleepless nights applying a simple formula to past election results across Arizona. His results showed across-the-board systemic election fraud on a coordinated and massive scale. But the analysis indicated that this only happens in larger precincts because anomalies in small precincts can be more easily detected.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More Flipping Or Something Else?

Since I have a strong interest in this kind of analysis (computer scientist by trade), I decided to reproduce some of the author's results and then investigate some new data.

Among the new data were NH 2008 Primary results (both Republican and Democrat) and NJ 2008 General Election results. The NJ results are not per-precinct but rather per-municipality, which I think is a suitable substitute. As you can see from the images linked to below, the same "flipping" trends are present. I also ran some computer simulations and found that votes "lost" or "gained" are very statistically significant in all three cases.


Contrary to one of the assertions in the Vote-Flipping Paper, this is not a Republican-only phenomenon, and does not "benefit" only Republicans in the General election matchups.

I think these new charts suggest that there is some other underlying explanation for this apparent "flipping" phenomenon. I have not yet tried matching up demographic data here, but one obvious thing that comes to mind is that more populous precincts/municipalities will tend to be in urban areas. Regardless of Party affiliation, I think it may be reasonable to consider whether city voters tend to be more liberal/moderate, especially relative to others in their own Party.

I don't pretend to have solved any mystery here, but I do think that these charts cast some doubt on the "flipping" hypothesis (unless flipping is rampant by both sides on a huge scale, which I suppose is possible). I plan to continue studying data from other election years and non-Presidential elections in particular to hopefully find out more.

Reason to Investigate Further, But Not Proof

Firstly, I believe that the analysts who have released this Paper are excellent patriots serving a very important role of trying to protect the integrity of our Republic. Their data is very interesting and raises a red flag about recent election results. There is no doubt that this warrants further study. And now my caveat.

There are several reasons that the Paper is not "proof". Here are a few:

  • Non-demographic factors were not considered. As an example of one such factor that might be relevant, what is the proportion of early voting in these precincts? Are large precincts significantly more likely to have high proportion of early voting? There are a variety of reasons that early voting results may differ from election-day results.
  • The authors did not study elections prior to 2008 for comparison.
  • Likewise, other than one example cited, there is no systematic comparison of results with/without electronic voting machines across a significant time interval. Stated another way, we don't really know what "normal" is. We have a pre-conceived notion of normal, but that is not Fact unless verified.
  • I, for one, am very suspicious of Romney's results this past primary cycle, and we should not be surprised if lightning strikes twice. However, to use a forensic investigation metaphor, this Paper does not amount to a smoking gun but rather to perimortem bruising that probably indicates foul play but also might have a benign explanation.

    Here is the paper


    Looks like a revisit of Dr. K's stuff. The part at the end where they try to reproduce the anomaly is interesting; that's a step in the right direction.

    It's happening in the other direction

    There was a report recently on the DP that in early voting votes were being switched to Obama from Romney. I am sure both parties are involved. It is not a partisan issue. I am convinced the oligarchy will choose the winner and make sure he/she wins. Up till now they have used media and polling and now they have the electronic voting systems.

    It is good to see that there is a groundswell of awareness and the report matches exactly what we learned from DP members at the time of the primaries so that is confirmation.

    "Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

    This certainly won't surprise any Ron Paul supporters.

    We know a few things they did in Tampa to cheat one of their own out of a nomination.

    I hate the RNC even more than the DNC now.

    "We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
    -Ron Paul

    Nice confirmation

    The writings been on the wall for a while to those paying attention but it's always extra special to hear a high level insiders confirming what the general public already understands – hence government all-time low approval ratings.

    1. Pew Research study came out stating the mainstream media ignored Ron Paul using metric data to prove it

    2. Hundreds of videos online of illegal activities used to marginalize Paul supporters under terrible cover of "plausible dependability" which any lawyer or judge (put out of work by NDAA) can peruse at their leisure.

    3. Video of self-admitted paid Romney supporters

    4. The AP ignoring Ron Paul winning the Virgin Islands and instead making up delegate numbers to declare Romney the winner


    5. The Texas straw poll results from MSM in favor of Romney over Paul.
    (google: "With projected Texas win, Romney has necessary")

    The list goes on.

    I don't think a lack of evidence is the problem when you have so many politicos shamelessly and openly flaunting their illicit practices. It's open and in our faces at this point. The only question is where is the leadership that's going to take control of the madness before China dumps the myopic globalist leeches on their head and our entire nation along with them?

    To be honest, this statement:

    To be honest, this statement: "The probability of such a statistical event happening by chance is a veritable mathematical
    impossibility" is complete bullshit.

    There are several gaping

    There are several gaping holes in this analysis that need to be addressed before it should be considered credible. Here are a few:

    "Possibly of very high importance to investigators, whenever a county does not make use of a “Central
    Tabulator” machine, there is no Vote Flipping and the plot traces on the chart “flat-line”." -- there is no discussion in the document about the characteristics of counties that use central tabulator machines. What determines whether a county uses a central tabulator machine or not? Is it correlated with the size of the county? It seems sensible to me that larger counties would need such a machine to help them count votes. Just because a central tabulator machine is not used and there is no vote flipping does not mean that that is the reason there is vote flipping. To say otherwise is a logical fallacy.

    There should be more discussion on how demographics was ruled out as a cause. The chart appears to show that this was done on a state level. However, wouldn't one be concerned about demographics on the precinct level since that is what you are studying in detail?

    With regards to Table 1, simply showing that Mitt Romney got about the same number of votes doesn't prove anything, as the document implies. It simply means that Mitt Romney got the same number of votes. There was a very informative article written on Mitt Romney's GOTV operation in these primary states, and I think it might partially explain what is seen here. I can't find the link, but maybe somebody else can post it since it was pretty fascinating.

    In Figure 6, the number of votes flipped (on other candidates) does not equal the number of votes flipped for Romney. Why is this? It seems like the numbers should add up. Also, expressing these numbers as a percentage of the total number of votes each candidate received in the primary would be a useful indicator as to how much this effect supposedly affected the results. My guess is not much since ~1.2m flipped votes isn't that much in the grand scheme of things (considering that many of these states were won by Romney with large margins).

    How much effort was made to compare these results with exit polls? How about polling prior to election day that was conducted by reputable organizations?

    With regards to the analysis in general, it would be useful to know if there was any correlation between small precincts or large precincts being in city or rural areas?

    link to the article is dead.

    link to the article is dead.