Truthspace’s Research

In a world of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act

Clear Evidence Of Widespread Vote Fraud In New Hampshire

Clear Evidence Of Widespread Vote Fraud In New Hampshire
Paul and Obama cheated out of 3rd and 1st by voting machines, hand count fraud

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, 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.

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.

(Article continues below)

– 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?


January 9, 2008 - Posted by | Government | , , ,


  1. There is no way Ron got a lower percentage of the vote in NH than he got in Iowa. There is already a vote “discrepancy” proven in one town, Sutton. I have no doubt it was a problem statewide.

    Comment by warispeace | January 9, 2008 | Reply

  2. You nailed it. And that 911 bit, wow. I can just see someone thinking “hmm, what figure do we give him for these towns? Giuliani… New York… 911… 9.11? Yeah why not?”

    Revolution through peaceful means? Kudos to those who are exhausting every means to achieve this, but it just ain’t possibly gonna happen anymore in view of this cheating. There isn’t a level playing field.

    If America really were the greatest country on earth the people would already be out on the streets rounding up the cheaters, just like other not-so-great(?) countries have had the courage to do.

    P.S. How long ago was the Boston tea-party again? Do Americans today bear ANY resemblance to their ancestors?

    Comment by Vendetta | January 10, 2008 | Reply

  3. would you like to get more “eyes” on you blog? I can help you.

    Comment by Anthony | January 10, 2008 | Reply

  4. I’m afraid this article is not very convincing. You state “Nothing occured that boosted Hillary’s numbers immediately before the election”. Well, this can be disputed. Many think the fact she had suddenly fallen behind in the polls rallied her supporters (particularly women). If you’re going to claim fraud you’d better come up with better arguments than this. Diebold makes an easy target and you’re just riding the coattails of cranky consipracy theorists hoping that some of your fanciful allegations will stick.

    Comment by PB | January 10, 2008 | Reply

  5. I think this is funny…..that the Clinton group who
    had accused Bush of voter fraud in 2004 to is being accused of voter fraud too. I guess what goes around, comes
    around. Has anyone even tested these machines to see if they
    work properly? I would assume they were tested first. The machines most likely calculated things properly.. We just have a lot of accusations….All they have to do is run a test.
    If the machine passes the test, then the machines work.

    Comment by Marianne | January 10, 2008 | Reply

  6. There were about 20 candidates on the ballot. “Other candidate” might have been Vermin Supreme, Mark Klein, or any number of other people.

    Sutton corrected its error, which was not in counting, but rather in transcribing the information. This is all knowable with minimal research.

    But if you prefer the conspiracy theory, then, by all means, don’t let me stop you.

    Comment by wickle | January 10, 2008 | Reply

  7. Thank you for posting this – the media has completely dropped the ball on the threat of electronic voting machines. So scary.

    Comment by mssinglemama | January 10, 2008 | Reply

  8. I lose more and more faith in politics everyday.

    “Those who cast the vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.” Joseph Stalin.

    Comment by justanotherkatie | January 11, 2008 | Reply

  9. This country ceased being free with he Kennedy murder: one of history’s greatest coupes.

    And this, what a farce; and where is the major media with these stories?

    Bought and paid for is where.

    We will soon all be slaves.

    Comment by John P. | January 11, 2008 | Reply

  10. HBO did a documentary called “Hacking Democracy” – you should be able to watch it on Google Video. In the documentary, they showed how incredibly easy it is to hack the Deibold machines and fix the elections – and they did it right in front of the Florida State Elections Comissioner.

    Anyone who knows anything about technology can tell you that the Deibold machines are designed to be fraudulent – they won’t publish their software – and even if they did there would be no way to confirm what was actually loaded on the machines. I’ve been told by an election official that the voting machines are even equipped with a wireless network card – I work in IT security, and THAT cinched it for me – the results are for sale to the highest bidder.

    Another tidbit – the CEO of Diebold has multiple fraud cases pending against him – seems he had “back doors” written into their ATM software so he could have easy access to cash…..

    Comment by GentileJoe | January 13, 2008 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: