"How did Hillary steal New Hampshire?"
"Ask Congressman Dennis Kucinich [D-OH] who is paying for a "recount" of the electronic balloting in New Hampshire and he will likely tell you that the old Clinton shenanigans were taking place in the nation's first primary. Staffers for Congressman Ron Paul [R-TX] will say the same thing, but laying the blame on Sen. John McCain rather than Hillary Clinton. But, in both instances, the name "Diebold" will pop up in the dialogue.
According to the totals, Hillary Clinton won over Barack Obama 39.4% to 36.8%. When you examine the Diebold AccVote Optical-Scan voting machine count for each candidate, you discover that Hillary took 52.95% of the votes compared to 47.05% for Obama. However, when you examine the paper ballots, Obama took 52.93% of the votes compared to 47.07% for Hillary. By no stretch of the imagination can you make the argument that in all of the voting precincts where machines were used, Hillary actually won, and that Obama only won in the districts using paper ballots. It is more logical to assume that someone switched the names in the voting machine's memory bank, and credited the Obama hits to Hillary and visa versa. Two things lend credence to that train of thought.
First, election officials in New Hampshire have confirmed that employees from LHS Associates—the programmers for Diebold's AccVote Optical-Scan voting machines—were allowed to access vulnerable optical scan data systems throughout election day. Talk about a front row seat to who's voting for whom. Second, every major pollster—and we are talking about the biggest and most important names in the public opinion field—ended up with egg on their faces in New Hampshire because every one of them—including those doing the exit polling—predicted that Clinton would lose to Obama.
(It turns out that Hillary's "human moment" in New Hampshire wasn't due to "woman talk," but defeatism. When Hillary was caught by a photographer with a tearful gaze, staring off into space, its because she had just learned that every pollster in the country was awarding the night to Obama. I suspect Hillary was not at all sure the voting machines would be able to save the day.) In the days leading up to the primary, Obama led 41% to 28% in a USA Today-Gallop poll. Just before the primary a CNN poll gave Obama a 39% to 30% edge over the New York Senator. Fox News put the race at 32% to 28% for Obama. Every indicator—including the people who cast the votes—gave the win to Obama.
The pollsters were so shocked by missing the mark so bad it apparently did not dawn on any of them that someone might have been playing loosey-goosey with the voting machines. The explanation offered by the pollsters was that the voters were leaning this-a-way and that-a-way and just weren't really locked in on Obama (even though they said they were) until they got into the voting booth. Some of them, I guess, weren't even sure—even after they had cast their ballots—how they voted when they engaged in exit interviews. Or, maybe 20% or so of the voters lied to those doing the exit polls because they didn't want to admit they would be stupid enough to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Here's the hard and fast nitty-gritty. Take it to the bank. First, only 35% of those who call themselves Democrats will vote for Hillary. Fifty-two percent of all the total voter pool in the United States would rather poke out their eyes with a dirty stick than vote for her. That leaves 17% of the voters—mostly Reagan Democrats—that Hillary must convince (or at least 8% of them) that she really is a closet conservative. And then she has to hope that someone like Congressman Ron Paul or former Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan can be convinced to jump in as a third party candidate and drain off 10% to 12% of the vote—or that conservatives will be so disillusioned with the GOP choices that, once more, they will sit out the election and allow her to win the White House with a 42% mandate to govern as those voters did during the 2006 midterm election .
A preliminary investigation by election officials in New Hampshire revealed conflicting information concerning what was actually going on in the voting precincts that were using the AccVote Optical-Scan voting machines. There was a great deal of confusion from clerks in the precincts and officials in the Attorney General's office regarding protocols and security procedures. The people on the ground couldn't understand why the AccVote Optical-Scan people needed to check the voting machines and the people in Concord had no established protocol to regulate what was happening on the ground. It does appear that the voting machines broke down quite often, or didn't perform in a manner that made it easy for the voter to complete the task of casting his or her vote.
The Ron Paul Campaign insisted that votes cast for John McCain were switched with those cast for Dr. Paul. On his War Room site, Dr. Paul captured a Fox & Friends clip in an interview with Ed Felton, a Princeton University professor who infected a touch-screen voting machine with a simple virus. http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=1103 shows easily how a hackers—anyone who can write can write code—can reconfigure the votes. While there is a paper trail of sorts with an Optical Scanner (since the computer simply reads what's on the ballot) there is not with a touch-screen voting machine. (It was comparing the totals generated by the AccVote Optical-Scan with the paper ballots that convinced the Ron Paul Campaign that the votes were manipulated.)
With the touch-screen computers—such as those used in the Fox and Friends experiment, there is no paper trail to prove who voted for which candidate. When you cast your ballot electronically, there is no definitive method to prove how many votes were stolen from one candidate and deposited with another one. In both cases—with the AccVote Optical-Scan machines or the touch-screen computer—the first clue that someone hacked the voting machines comes from the exit polls—just as it did in New Hampshire.
Only, in New Hampshire, the pollsters blamed themselves. When people doing exit polling learn that 56% of the voters claimed to have voted for Candidate A and 44% claimed to have voted for Candidate B, its a fairly safe bet that Candidate A will end up the winner at the end of the day. That's how TV networks are able to predict the winners 30 to 45 minutes after the polls close with only 1% to 2% of the vote counted.
In the Election of 2000, the exit polls showed that Al Gore won Illinois. One minute after the polls closed, CNN gave him the win. The exit polls showed he would win New Jersey by 15 points. CNN gave him the state one minute after the polls closed. Because the western States had up to 3 additional hours to vote, if you recall, no George W. Bush wins were granted that quickly. Even though the polls in Ohio closed at 7:30, and the exit polls gave the State to Bush, it took the networks 1 hour 45 minutes to give him the win. And even though the exit polls showed that Bush had won Bill Clinton's home State by six points, the networks, fearing it would damage Gore's vote-getting in the west, held back from giving Arkansas to Bush for almost three hours. When the totals disagree—particularly when the totals are flip-flopped—take it to the bank. Someone was screwing with the voting machines. The people in that State need to demand the election be recast—on paper ballots.
The American people need to understand this. I mean, really, really understand this. When special interest groups and multinational corporations invest multiple millions of dollars in the "candidate of their choice" (and also finance the designated loser), they are very serious about getting their man—or woman—elected. Since they have preselected the winner and loser of the presidential race, the only thing they have to do is to make sure that the designated winner and the designated loser get their parties' nomination. How do they do that? By manipulating the primary system, and convincing the voters that its better for them if the nominees are selected by them before they get to the convention where the State delegates get to pick them. AN OPEN CONVENTION SERVES THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BETTER THAN LETTING THE SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS AND MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS BUY THEIR PRESIDENTS IN THE PUBLIC MARKET PLACE. When we have open conventions, we have a better chance of getting an honest candidate. Candidates like Ron Paul or Fred Thompson—or Zell Miller—stand a better chance of being nominated and elected in an open convention than they do under rigged primaries.
And, while we are at it, we need to force Congress to enact a law that outlaws all campaign contributions larger than $500 from individuals, and outlaws any form of contributions from PAC groups, corporations or any type of organization to any political candidate or political party. Here's why. Hillary Clinton and John McCain share a major donor—one of three largest donors for both candidates. The contributor is a law firm: Greenberg Traurig LLP. Greenberg Traurig specializes in international law, i.e., the merging of international law into the US Code. At this moment 5 US Senators and 48 Congressmen are functioning as advisers to an NGO headquartered in Brussels with offices in Washington, DC that is working out the details of what is being described as a Transatlantic Common Market. This group will forge an economic agreement between the United States and the European Union to be solidified by 2015.
In April of last year the Bush Administration quietly, and without media fanfare, created a forum called the Transatlantic Economic Council. The Bush plan was actually written by a Cecil Rhodes devotee and ardent globalist, Clarence Streit, in 1939 in a book entitled Union Now. Bush signed this agreement in a White House summit last April with German Chancellor Angela Merkel (the current president of the European Council and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso of Portugal. Whether or not this agreement ever ends up in the US Senate remains to be seen. However, signed it was signed by all parties, according to the 17th century Law of the Nations, it is binding on all parties—in perpetuity.
Congressman Jim Costa [D-CA], one of the members of the congressional advisory group said the Transatlantic Economic Council is charged with the responsibility of creating the Transatlantic Common Market regulatory infrastructure. Wouldn't Greenberg Traurig love to have that contract? And, since the next president will be tasked with the responsibility of getting that job done, by backing both Clinton and McCain—viewed by the money barons as the most likely winners of the Election of 2008—Greenberg Traurig wants to make sure they are a welcome guest in the Oval Office where quid pro quos are rubber stamped. Also part of the Transatlantic Policy Network (the advisory panel) are Senators Thad Cochran [R-MS], Barbara Mikulski [D-MI], Pat Roberts [R-KS], and Gordon Smith [R-OR]. Congressmen, in addition to Costa, are John Boehner [R-OH], John Dingell [D-MI], and F. James Sensenbrenner [R-WI]. (Running for reelection in November are Thad Cochran, Pat Roberts, and Gordon Smith. Of course, all of the members of the House are up for reelection. Remember: we must get control of the Senate. To do that, we have to remove our three wayward GOP senators in the primary and elect their replacements. It's a tough job, but I think America is up to the task."
