PDA

View Full Version : European Press Calling For A Recount In New Hampshire




chiplitfam
01-22-2008, 10:10 PM
II. The European Press is calling for a recount in New Hampshire Democrat Party presidential primary because it has discovered that the vote was rigged to produce the startling Hillary Clinton victory!
How was the election rigged? By those dastardly Diebold electronic voting machines!


NEWS BRIEF: "European Press Reporting: It wasn't a miracle - Hillary won via a rigged vote - Diebold electronic voting machines", The Intelligence Daily, 15 January 2008
"The mainstream Italian media are reporting both the rigging of the New Hampshire primary for Senator Hillary Clinton and the official demands for a swift, accurate and impartial recount. In an article written by Marcello Foa, one of Europe's most respected journalists, it appears that vote tallies for all Democratic candidates as well as Republicans were reduced by Diebold vote-counting machines. In an analysis of the hand-counted ballots, the influential Milanese newspaper - Il Giornale, reports that all Democratic candidates except Senator Hillary Clinton made gains when the New Hampshire ballots were manually tabulated, while Senator Clinton made inexplicably large gains where ballots were tabulated by computerized scanners."
After the 2004 election, Cutting Edge Ministries extensively reported on the capability of the Diebold electronic voting machines to rig elections. Listen to what we reported then, quoting relevant portions of our Headline News Article, "Electronic Voting Machines Pose A Real and Present Danger To The American Representative Republic, Which Absolutely Depends Upon Accurate Vote Counting", NEWS1976)


As Cutting Edge has repeatedly warned, electronic voting machines will enable our leaders to steal elections at will. Regardless of whether the outcome of the 2004 Presidential election was unduly influenced by these e-voting machines, elections will be totally stolen once all precincts switch over to them ... the question of this hour is simple: can we prove intent on the part of any official involved in the electronic voting industry to steal votes so as to swing the election toward any particular party or any individual candidate? You be the judge after reading this news story.


Over one year ago, the top executive of the Diebold voting machines told Ohio Republicans that he and his company were dedicated to deliver the state to President Bush in 2004!
NEWS BRIEF: "Voting Machine Controversy", by Julie Carr Smyth, Cleveland Plain Dealer, August 28, 2003, reprinted in Common Dreams News Center
"COLUMBUS - The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is 'committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year'. The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. - who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush - prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election."
Can you imagine the audacity of the Chief Executive of a voting machine company boldly coming out to support President Bush in 2004, even going so far as to say that he and his Diebold Company are dedicated to delivering Ohio votes for Bush in 2004! A company who is manufacturing electronic voting machines should go to great lengths to protect their integrity of impartiality. After all, a voting machine is to be the unbiased instrument by which voters express their will, not the biased means by which one candidate, and his party, achieve a goal which is pre-determined!


This story just gets worse.
"O'Dell attended a strategy pow-wow with wealthy Bush benefactors - known as Rangers and Pioneers - at the president's Crawford, Texas, ranch earlier this month. The next week, he penned invitations to a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser to benefit the Ohio Republican Party's federal campaign fund - partially benefiting Bush - at his mansion in the Columbus suburb of Upper Arlington." (Ibid.)
Thus, the Diebold company was tightly in the back pocket of President Bush, starting at least as far back as 2003."
Thus, you can see how easy it is for the Global Elite to cause the election of whomever they have chosen for any office in the land. In 2004, the Illuminati most definitely wanted President Bush reelected, and I believe that their chosen candidate for 2008 may very well be Hillary Clinton.


This is the reason Hillary won the New Hampshire Democrat Party primary, when all the pollsters felt she would do poorly, predicting that Senator Obama would be elected. This type of voter manipulation will last through the entire presidential primary process. All voting is rigged and the outcome is certain. The skill of the propagandist is to plan the manner in which planned events can unfold so they are seen by a gullible public as accidental events.
With this thought in mind, let us review the Michigan presidential primary results.
III Hillary Clinton rode to uncontested victory in the Michigan Democrat presidential primary, while Mitt Romney kept his candidacy alive with a victory on the Republican side.
NEWS BRIEF: "Hillary Clinton coasts to Democratic victory", Detroit News, January 16, 2008
"As expected, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton won the Michigan Democratic primary Tuesday, easily outpolling the 'uncommitted' vote, but partisans are quarreling over whether she drew enough support to spare embarrassment."
We have long stated that the major problem Hillary has in this process of ascending to the White House is that she is disliked by so many voters. And, pollsters know that fact very well. If the plan is to bring Hillary Clinton into the White House as the country's 44th President, how can political pundits explain the incongruity to the American people as to how a person who is so widely disliked can be elected President?


Bill Clinton faced this same obstacle in 1992 and 1996, as he was almost as widely disliked as Hillary is today. In these elections, the answer was to stage a Third Party Candidate, Ross Perot. Political talking heads then explained to the people that Clinton was able to get a plurality of votes and be elected only because the Perot candidacy had split the Conservative vote.
I could be wrong here, but I would not be surprised to see either Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul split off in "anger" from the Republican presidential convention to form a Third Party Candidacy. Then, the "talking heads" could drone on and on, saying that Hillary won only because of the debilitating effects of the Third Party candidacy.
Let us return to our featured article, above.

"With 97 percent of precincts reporting, Clinton took 55 percent of the vote to 40 percent for uncommitted, which is essentially a vote for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama or former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who pulled their names off the ballot in deference to party rules and urged their supporters to vote uncommitted."
In other words, neither Obama nor Edwards campaigned much in Michigan, and they still got 40% of the vote! Pollsters do understand that many, many people do not like Hillary Clinton.


(For the record, Hillary did not campaign extensively in Michigan, either)
On the Republican side, Mitt Romney won the election in Michigan, even though he has closely allied his campaign with President Bush, who is mightily disliked because of the high unemployment in that state. Did the Diebold voting machines win the election for Romney?
NEWS BRIEF: "Romney pulls off big win in Michigan", The Independent (U.K.), 16 January 2008
"An almost giddy Mitt Romney pulled off a convincing victory in the Republican primary in Michigan last night, reviving his bid for the White House and further muddying his party's still wide-open competition for the presidential nomination ... Many had argued that a loss for Mr Romney in Michigan might have spelled the end of his campaign for the nomination. By contrast, he now becomes the third man in the Republican field to chalk up a big win as the competition moves on in the next days to South Carolina, Nevada and Florida."
Now, the presidential campaign moves into high gear. We expect a variety of candidates to win some and lose some as the calendar heads toward the time of the nominating conventions.

FrankRep
01-22-2008, 10:15 PM
//

Dr.3D
01-22-2008, 10:23 PM
Yeah, they own the main stream media and fix the vote, how can they lose?