90% Of Tonight’s Votes To Be Counted By Diebold Electronic Voting Machines

90% Of Tonight’s Votes To Be Counted By Diebold Electronic Voting Machines Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com Tuesday, January 10, 2012 Paul supporters worry New Hampshire chicanery could cost him second place finish 90 per cent of tonight’s votes in the GOP New Hampshire primary will be counted by notoriously suspect Diebold electronic voting machines, which during the Democratic primary back in 2008 produced a result that completely defied both pre-primary and exit polls.

Despite widespread accusations of vote fraud four years ago, New Hampshire has failed to revert to good old fashioned hand-counted paper ballots for all but 10 per cent of the votes that will be cast.

Although 40% of New Hampshire towns use publicly hand-counted paper ballots to arrive at their vote tallies, these only account for 10% of the total votes cast in the state.

“The rest will be cast on hand-marked paper ballots, but tallied by the Diebold optical-scan computers,” reports The Brad Blog. “The same ones shown many times to be easily manipulated and and which sometimes just drop votes in such a way that there is no way to know whether they have been manipulated or failed unless one bothers to actually hand-count the paper ballots. The state does not hand-count those ballots in NH, unless a recount is called for. By then, as we saw in 2008, the chain of custody has been broken and it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to know if the ballots being “recounted” are the ones that were actually cast on Election Night.”

It was thanks to Diebold electronic voting machines, programmed and serviced by a company with a criminal background, that Hillary Clinton was able to pull off the biggest election shock in history by reversing a 13 point deficit to beat Barack Obama by 3 per cent.

At one stage hours before the vote, betting websites were offering odds of 250/1 on a Clinton victory, while Obama was at 1/100. Exit polls of voters on the day of the election confirmed that Obama was cruising to a landslide. And yet Clinton defied all the polls to claim a hugely suspect first place.

“It was noted that Obama was the winner of the hand-counted towns in NH, while Clinton won in the Diebold towns by an almost mirror-opposite percentage,” writes Brad Friedman.

Ron Paul supporters also noted how establishment candidate Rudy Giuliani significantly outperformed Paul on Diebold machines compared to paper ballots, a swing that cost Paul a crucial place in the pecking order of candidates in the GOP race.

Paul also found himself on the wrong end of suspected vote fraud when election officials in districts such as Sutton reported that Paul had received zero votes, despite numerous individuals immediately going public and asserting they had voted for Paul. Officials later had to admit that 31 votes for Paul in Sutton alone had not been counted due to “human error”.

Although a recount would have cost a mere $2,000, Obama wasn’t interested and Dennis Kucinich ran out of money when the cost suddenly jumped to $60,000, forcing him to abandon his push for a recount despite his partial effort revealing huge discrepancies across the state.

“New Hampshire is currently the Decepticon of transparent elections. For each transparent election procedure, they’ve built a trap door,” warns electronic vote fraud expert Bev Harris.

Indeed, the man who lied to the media when he claimed Kucinich was “satisfied” with the 2008 recount, Sec. of State William Gardener, still holds sway in New Hampshire having been in power since 1976.

“Though only Third-World dictators and small town Sheriff’s tend to serve for that long in any one office, the media doesn’t question Secretary Gardner, as he continues to be the state’s point man zealously protecting its billion-dollar industry known as the “First-in-the-Nation” primary,” notes Friedman.

Although Mitt Romney is widely expected to win by a considerable margin, should Ron Paul, who is currently polling in second place, be pushed down to third by establishment candidate and former Obama administration official Jon Huntsman, expect Paul supporters to demand a statistical break-down of Paul’s performance on Diebold machines compared to hand-counted votes.

The results will almost certainly make for interesting reading.

“New Hampshire still uses the same institutionally vulnerable Diebold electronic voting machines as in 2008,” writes Dave Trotter . “So the odds of GOP establishment chicanery are even higher than in Iowa. After all, the establishment that Ron Paul threatens remains firmly in control of the levers and dials of the pollsters and the voting machines.”

Obama Ally Huntsman Is The Establishment’s Ron Paul Spoiler Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com Tuesday, January 10, 2012 System throws weight behind former Obama administration official in desperate bid to cheat Paul out of second place in New Hampshire Just as they threw their considerable weight behind Rick Santorum last week in a successful bid to prevent Ron Paul from finishing in the top two in Iowa, the establishment media has now turned to former Obama administration official Jon Huntsman in a desperate move to block Paul from winning the “anyone-but-Romney’ crown in New Hampshire.

1. Although polls show Paul has a comfortable lead over Huntsman going into tonight’s primary, we are seeing a mirror image of last week’s rhetoric in that the media is trumpeting Huntsman as the candidate with the most “momentum” in the final hours before voting.

Forget about the powers that be not wanting Paul to win, they’re petrified of him event finishing a distant second. The establishment is terrified that Ron Paul could take the silver medal because it could provide the Congressman with the momentum he needs to emerge as the primary challenger to Mitt Romney going forward.

That’s why the likes of CBS News have even sunk to the depths of editing out Ron Paul’s second place finish from onscreen poll result graphics as well as onair discussions.

As Reason’s Brian Doherty writes today, ” That Huntsman might pull ahead of Paul into second today in New Hampshire has been widely said with very little evidence, which certainly feeds into the Paul fan paranoid narrative that the media is desperate for anyone-butPaul to become the anointed anyone-but-

Romney. I am even now watching cable tv pundits, presenting the current 20-13 Paul-Huntsman polling, still talking as if Huntsman beating him is reasonable to expect today.”

Even liberals like Slate’s Dave Weigel are urging disgruntled Democrats to act as Paul spoilers in the GOP race by voting for Huntsman, ludicrously claiming that Huntsman can defeat Obama when the latest poll shows he would be easily beaten by the President, while Paul is almost tied with Obama in a hypothetical run-off, second only to Romney.

The corporate press is obsessed with their self-fulfilling prophecy of claiming Ron Paul has no chance of winning the GOP nomination, but Huntsman has even less chance. He’s not even on the ballot in Virginia or Arizona.

Huntsman is about as conservative as Karl Marx. He’s a vehement climate change believer, a firm ally of Harry Reid, has strongly opposed the Tea Party movement and to top it all off, he’s a former Obama administration official. How this man can be framed as a legitimate alternative to Ron Paul anywhere outside of the Twilight Zone of the establishment media is beyond a joke.

Described as “Barack Obama’s secret weapon” by some conservatives, Huntsman is likely to drop out of the GOP race, run as an Independent and take enough votes away from whoever turns out to be the Republican candidate in order to ensure Obama’s re-election.

1. If we are to set aside concerns about the same electronic voting machines which disenfranchised Paul in New Hampshire back in 2008, along with missing votes for Paul that were not counted, and presume that the establishment’s rush to promote Huntsman will be sufficient to sway enough genuine voters for Huntsman to take second place, the clincher could very well end up being a “false flag” most likely launched by the Huntsman campaign itself.

An independent analysis of the offensive anti-Huntsman ad which the media rushed to blame on Ron Paul supporters and which Huntsman himself seized upon to exploit the moral high ground concludes that the ad was in all likelihood created by the Huntsman campaign and had nothing to do with Ron Paul or his supporters.

“There was never any reason to believe it,” writes Doherty. “The ad arose from a YouTube account and

group name “NHLiberty4Paul” that had never had any public presence before, no Paul fan had ever shown a sign of thinking Huntsman was of interest to them, it was circulated not through any of the many existing channels where Paul fans gather and talk but rather from Huntsman’s own campaign, Huntsman made much anti-Paul hay from it. Although it’s hard to learn who is responsible for things posted on YouTube, there is more reason to think a Huntsman partisan was responsible than that a Paul one was.

Indeed, the independent analysis shows that the first URL referral to the ad came from the Huntsman campaign’s internal email server, before it had been posted on any other website besides that created by its anonymous author.

The polls show that Ron Paul should secure second place in New Hampshire tonight and that’s the result the vast majority of our readers will be rooting for. However, don’t be surprised if a combination of the establishment throwing its weight behind Huntsman, in addition to the dirty tricks on behalf of the Huntsman campaign, added to Diebold electronic voting machines and a history of vote fraud in the state, all combine to disenfranchise Paul once more and give the media the opportunity to ignore and dismiss his campaign yet again.

Huntsman Supporters Admit Creating ‘Racist’ Video To Smear Ron Paul?

Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com Tuesday, January 10, 2012 Don’t believe anonymous Internet posts, unless you’re the mainstream media A Jon Huntsman forum appears to show Huntsman supporters bragging about how they created a racist anti-Huntsman ad that the media instantly attributed to Ron Paul supporters in order to smear Paul and his voters as extremists.

However, the forum thread could just as easily be a satire, created

by Ron Paul supporters, Huntsman voters, or someone with no interest in either candidate.

The lesson to take away from it all is not to believe that one anonymous Internet post represents any one candidate or campaign, which is just what the establishment media did when they instantly seized upon the suspicious antiHuntsman ad to smear Ron Paul voters and by extension Ron Paul himself as racist.

The forum thread, entitled, ‘The paulbots are going crazy with our video’, states, “I cant believe how stupid these people are. As campaign insiders many of you are aware we created the fake video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZeVqj-t1U0 and made it look like it came from the ron paul people. This is a suprise it went viral. And the good news is paul is getting blamed for it.”

“My goodness this is turning out better than expected. I was on the phone today with the campaign and they have another one coming out monday.”

The moderator of the website expresses confusion about whether or not the post is legitimate, writing, “We’re still confused about the whole thing….We feel the the bottom line is..anyone can post a video to youtube claiming to represent a group, just like someone can post here claiming to represent a group.”

The forum thread shows other apparent Huntsman supporters bragging about how the media fell for the fake video and blamed Ron Paul supporters, before others demand that the thread either be removed or hidden.

Whether or not the thread is the work of Huntsman supporters, the fact remains that an independent web consulting firm which analyzed the anti-Huntsman ad on behalf of the Paul campaign concluded that it most likely was created by the Huntsman campaign itself.

“In an analysis commissioned by Ron Paul’s presidential campaign, the web consulting firm CanDo.com presents a different hypothesis: that supporters of Huntsman’s campaign posted the video in an attempt to trigger a backlash against Paul,” 1. reports Politico.

The firm found that one of the first URL referrals to the video came from Jon2012.com, Huntsman’s campaign website, and that this likely originated from an internal Huntsman campaign email since the website itself contains no link to the

video.

“After researching the available evidence, we believe it is likely that the video came from a source within or closely tied to the Huntsman Campaign,” concludes the CanDo.com analysis.

The analysis also found that the You Tube and Twitter accounts responsible for creating the video, NHLiberty4Paul, were created on the day the video was released, and no reference to the handle existed beforehand.

Immediately before the video received media attention, Huntsman told CNN, “Tell Dr. Paul that I owe him a tweet in return and he should be expecting one sometime soon.”

Whereas the establishment media treated the original claim that Ron Paul supporters were responsible for the offensive ad with a blaze of publicity, the far bigger scandal, the likelihood that the Huntsman campaign created the ad as a ‘false flag’ attack on the Paul campaign, has been almost universally ignored by the corporate press.