Clear Evidence Of Widespread Vote Fraud In New Hampshire

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
January 9, 2008

There were several major vote fraud issues to arise out of the New Hampshire primary revolving mainly around Ron Paul and Barack Obama, who were both seemingly cheated out of third and first places respectively as a result of rigged Diebold voting machines and deliberate malfeasance in the counting of hand-written paper ballots.

- Obama had a 13 to 15 point lead over Hillary Clinton heading into the primary. Nothing occured that boosted Hillary’s numbers immediately before the election, in fact immediately after the staged crying incident, many pundits argued it could only have harmed her chances. And yet Hillary somehow managed to instigate a near 20 point swing to defeat Obama by three per cent. If not for her 7% swing as a result of Diebold voting machines, Hillary would have lost to Obama. If Obama was struggling he would probably contest this bizarre outcome, but he is likely to accept the results simply to save face.

- Going into New Hampshire Ron Paul was polling in the early teens and was a strong bet to take third place behind McCain and Romney. Four days before the vote, Rasmussen had Paul at 14% - a significant lead over Huckabee on 11% and Giuliani on 8% - and yet Ron Paul finished with just 8%. Proof of clear vote fraud, allied with the fact that Paul’s numbers show a 6% swing from normally accurate pre-polling forecasts, clearly indicate chicanery was at hand, especially considering the fact that Paul lost those crucial few percentage points to Giuliani as a reuslt of electronic Diebold voting machines which are known to be wide open to tampering and fraud.

- Going purely on hand-counts, which as we saw in Sutton were by no means angelic but at least harder to cheat on than Diebold voting machines without getting caught, Ron Paul would have won 15% of the vote and finished third. This figure would have more accurately correlated to the pre-primary polls rather than the ridiculous 8% he was eventually given.

- Numerous districts reported totals of anything up to 22% for "other candidates". What on earth does this black hole of "other candidates" mean? How can one vote for a candidate that is not on the ballot without spoiling the ballot paper? The district of Lisbon reported 22.5% votes for this mysterious "other" candidate, while in the large district of Londonderry, the "other" candidate received 10%. Many are now alleging that these "other" votes were merely siphoned from Ron Paul to keep his final number low.

- Rudy Giuliani, the 9/11 candidate who beat Ron Paul thanks to the aid of a 3% swing on Diebold voting machines, received 9.11% of the vote in three different towns. Coincidence or somebody’s idea of a sick joke?

- The New Hampshire town of Sutton admits that it voided every vote Ron Paul received. The Congressman got 31 votes and yet due to a "human error," Sutton reported zero votes for Ron Paul. How "human error" can explain not counting 31 votes in succession for one single candidate is beyond the pale and Ron Paul’s campaign should ask for a recount across New Hampshire immediately.

- As soon as people went public with the fact that their votes in Sutton had not been counted, other districts where Paul had supposedly received zero votes, such as Greenville, suddenly changed their final tallies and attributed votes to the Congressman.

Sphere: Related Content

del.icio.us:Clear Evidence Of Widespread Vote Fraud In New Hampshire digg:Clear Evidence Of Widespread Vote Fraud In New Hampshire spurl:Clear Evidence Of Widespread Vote Fraud In New Hampshire wists:Clear Evidence Of Widespread Vote Fraud In New Hampshire simpy:Clear Evidence Of Widespread Vote Fraud In New Hampshire newsvine:Clear Evidence Of Widespread Vote Fraud In New Hampshire blinklist:Clear Evidence Of Widespread Vote Fraud In New Hampshire furl:Clear Evidence Of Widespread Vote Fraud In New Hampshire reddit:Clear Evidence Of Widespread Vote Fraud In New Hampshire fark:Clear Evidence Of Widespread Vote Fraud In New Hampshire blogmarks:Clear Evidence Of Widespread Vote Fraud In New Hampshire Y!:Clear Evidence Of Widespread Vote Fraud In New Hampshire smarking:Clear Evidence Of Widespread Vote Fraud In New Hampshire magnolia:Clear Evidence Of Widespread Vote Fraud In New Hampshire segnalo:Clear Evidence Of Widespread Vote Fraud In New Hampshire gifttagging:Clear Evidence Of Widespread Vote Fraud In New Hampshire

Email this

  1. simon on January 9th, 2008

    hillary the bitch ’someone kill her’

  2. Steven B on January 9th, 2008

    Rudy received 9.11% in 3 towns. It is possible that people working on the inside are sending a distress signal.

  3. Jason on January 9th, 2008

    Posts encouraging acts of violence are not welcome on this web site or on any other “Peaceful Revolution” info source.

    We will take this Republic back the humane way!

    Demand a recount and expose the fraud!

  4. Spyder on January 9th, 2008

    “We will take this Republic back the humane way!”

    You could expose the fraud all day long and the brainwashed folks still wont give a damn, or hear about it because of the media.

  5. Billy Pilgrim on January 9th, 2008

    If voting could actually change anything, it would have been outlawed long ago.

    This means we must be vigilant. We must demand transparency in the voting process. Above all we must remain calm and dignified. Nothing less will get our message through.

  6. Woodman on January 10th, 2008

    “The Congressman got 31 votes and yet due to a “human error,” Sutton reported zero votes for Ron Paul.”

    Strange that Sutton would not know the total number of paper ballots that were used. Surely people did not walk in and out of the voting area with ballots. So you would know how many paper ballots were used or discarded. Like concert tickets. Then you total up all of the candidates votes and see if they matched total ballots used. Sutton officials should have spotted the shortfall.

    There usually is a breakout showing candidate totals in the’other’catagory.

    Not easy to loose 31 votes. Blaming it on human error is supposed to make you think computer tab is more accurate. Makes me wonder if some votes also got added, by human error.

  7. More Evidence of New Hampshire Vote Fraud « Daily Liberty Research on January 10th, 2008

    […] More Evidence of New Hampshire Vote Fraud Posted January 10, 2008 Clear Evidence Of Widespread Vote Fraud In New Hampshire: […]

  8. Barb Clark on January 10th, 2008

    Slightly off topic:

    Public demonstration opportunity: 1/18/2008, noon, Sacramento federal courthouse

    SACRAMENTO: Concerned citizens will gather at the U.S. federal courthouse in Sacramento to demonstrate for the privacy of confidential medical records. Activities will begin at noon at the federal courthouse, 501 “I” Street, Sacramento, 95817.

    The focus will center on the need for increased federal enforcement of the medical privacy law known as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996. Increased concern has been raised about medical privacy to ensure the success of the proposed National Health Information Network, a super-highway of medical records propsoed by President George W. Bush.

    Following the demonstration Barb Clark, R.N., will attend a hearing at 1:30 pm before the Hon. Frank C. Damrell, who is hearing a motion by the Adventist Health System - West, Roseville, California, to have Clark labeled as a “vexatious litigant”.

    In court papers filed before Judge Damrell, lawyers for the Adventistg hospital chain have claimed that Clark is a “delusional conspiracy theorist”. Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court has accepted Clark’s Petition for Writ of Certiorai (07-8419) concerning whether or not a California attorney alleged to be involved in a conspiracy to violate HIPAA can be prosecuted under the criminal activity provisions of HIPAA.

    Clark must appear before Judge Damrell on Friday, 1/18/2008, to answer the charges by the Adventist hospital chain that she is a “vexatious” litigant as defined by California’s vexatious litigant law.

    Health care privacy experts believe that Clark is being punished for acting under the HIPAA whistle-blower protections.

    Sacramento, Friday, 1/18/2008, 1:30 pm., courtroom no. 2.

    For more information see:

    www.BarbClark.org

    www.AlmostBroken.com

    www.MyStateFundStory.com

  9. bob on January 10th, 2008

    The problem is that Rasmussen never showed RP polling at 14%. Yes, a website claimed it did, but there’s absolutely no evidence supporting that. Their Jan 08 poll showed

    http://www.rasmussenreports.co.....an_primary

  10. Lewis on January 10th, 2008

    Face it America, your fucked. And with that, the rest of the world….

  11. America In Danger - The Blog » Blog Archive » Clear Evidence Of Widespread Vote Fraud In New Hampshire on January 10th, 2008

    […] read more | digg story Sphere: Related Content […]

  12. Voter Fraud in New Hampshire « Scott Anderson on January 10th, 2008

    […] Watson at PrisonPlanet.com posted a better article than I can write and included several relevant links.  Check it […]

  13. kyrjvpwdi lkjsmf on May 1st, 2008

    cgio gzbis xhyibvzkl vhywk gpsudk puyjmhzbc ikftql

  14. cymbalta generic on July 19th, 2008

    tkbgpam
    http://rubyurl.com/v97b side effects of cymbalta

  15. all aout sarafem on July 21st, 2008

    vqnxw nuli nxcpk qgic
    http://efftreatment9.warp0.com/sarafem2 sarafem medication

  16. interaction with taking potassium and hydrochlorothiazide on July 28th, 2008

    irxfd
    http://medlem.spray.se/certifi.....rothiazide interaction with taking potassium and hydrochlorothiazide

  17. cardizem pravachol drug interactions on July 29th, 2008

    uzhidlx
    http://medlem.spray.se/certificatedshopp/pravachol pravachol drug profile side effects

  18. Gordon Proshek on October 21st, 2008

    Hello, I voted on 10/18/2008 early vote. I used a computer to vote on here in Las Vegas, NV. It printed up a ticket inside the machine and the man said to check it to make sure it was right… Then when I asked for a copy in case something went wrong I could bring back my copy and show how I voted… He stated you don’t get a copy its in the machine.. I just don’t understand, if it printed a copy for the machine why couldn’t it print one for me at the same time? Now what happens if they say somthing went wrong its my word against theirs but I know only theirs will count. But if I had the copy it would be proof positive how I voted… I just don’t get it. I’m an ex Viet Nam vet and I’m starting to really dought whats happening here.