RON PAUL DEFRAUDED BY IOWA STRAW POLL PROCESS -- Part I (LAUGH ALERT)

votefraud.org ^ | Jim Condit Jr.

[Chi-townChief]

This e-wire / report ultimately makes two points:

1. The voting process at the Iowa Straw Poll was a fraud, wrapped in lies. (Whenever those running any kind of an election use police power to hide all the ballots from the people, and then announce results (?) when supposedly (?) only they have seen the ballots – those people are frauds, are acting like Stalin-esque tyrants, and their organization is a fraud.

That award goes in our current drama to the Iowa GOP leadership, namely Ted Sporer, Chuck Laudner, Mary Tiffany, Craig Robinson, and Chairman Ray Hoffman. What they did to Ron Paul and all those who paid $35 to vote in the Iowa Straw Poll, and all those who entered into a contract with them by paying $35 to support the event, is UNCONSCIONABLE!

These KGB/GESTAPO TYPES, groveling before the sinister banking powers in NYC and behind the RNC and the DNC, -- and acting as their enforcers in Iowa -- hid all the EVIDENCE (the ballots) at the Iowa Straw Poll and announced the alleged results based on their assertion alone – which the rest of us are supposed to take and believe on blind faith!

I am joined by already thousands of others in saying: WE DON’T BELIEVE YOU! You hid the evidence! You have hidden the ballots – and now you have had time to switch the ballots! You fronted for crooks, thieves, enemies of America, enemies of honest people everywhere!

The US Supreme Court has ruled twice in the last one hundred years, in U.S v Mosley (1915) and Reynolds v Sims (1964), that our right to vote includes not only the right to cast a ballot, but the right to know that our vote was counted accurately.

There is only one reason to hide the ballots from press, from candidates, and from the people – because those so hiding the ballots want to keep open the option to cheat – to rig the election.

The evidence is the BALLOTS, which should have been kept in public view all day, and counted in the presence of ALL factions, before said ballots leave the public view.

LONGEST DELAY EVER

In 1995, when the “unbelievable” tie occurred between CFR favorites Senator Bob Dole and Senator Phil Graham – the doors were locked for two solid hours after the voting ended.

As I have said for years, only the GOP leadership was behind the locked doors in 1995, and all of them supported either Dole or Graham. The published “results” that year were that Buchanan, who by far got the best reception from the crowd, came in second with about 1950 – but that Dole and Graham “tied” for first place at exactly 2501 to 2501.

MANY people were not buying it, and Robert Novak of CNN suggested the next morning that the straw poll vote had been “cooked.” (By the way, Fred Smart interviewed a person on Saturday who also gave his witness from 1995 that only Dole and Graham people were behind the locked doors in the “counting” room in 1995.)

Our strong suspicion was that Buchanan came in first in 1995, but this result was unpalatable to the Neo-Cons running the GOP in NYC and D.C. So, the Dole and Graham people wanted to place Buchanan in second place, but neither would give way to the other on first place. Thus, the almost impossible tie was agreed upon.

This year of 2007 saw the longest delay EVER – 15 minutes loger than the 1995 delay. In 2007, the Ron Paul year, -- it was 2 hours and 15 minutes before the announcement came from the podium.

THE BEST HUNCH

While we are totally devoid of evidence (the ballots), the best analysis I’ve heard is this: that probably Dr. Paul came in second to Romney who spent hundreds of thousands of $$ to bus in people.

However, this result – Ron Paul coming in second place in the 2007 Iowa Straw Poll -- was totally unpalatable to the Iowa GOP and their NYC masters and D.C. handlers. Such a result would have shown both the GOP at the state and national level, and the 5 Big TV Networks – to be liars and falsifiers of evidence up until the Iowa Straw Poll.

The World Tyranny Ruling Elite needed Paul to appear to finish near the bottom so that they could ignore him completely on the mass media. Therefore, the suspicion is that Ron Paul’s vote was partially stolen and distributed to Huckabee, Brownback, and Romney. (Tancredo would not be helped by the Iowa GOP, despite his neo-con outlook on foreign affairs, because his anti-illegal immigration stance is completely unpalatable to the Ruling Elite in NYC and D.C. who dictate to the Iowa GOP, and all other state GOPs.)

As usual in computer-generated elections – everything came up smelling like roses for the Neo-con wirepullers behind the scenes of both parties.

THE AFFIDAVITS ARE ESSENTIAL! PLEASE HELP!

2. We need the affidavits of 1306+ Iowans who voted at the straw poll for Ron Paul – in order to prove, if such is the case, that the PUBLISHED count which the Iowa GOP announced was not accurate with regard to Ron Paul’s vote. (All who actually voted are welcome to submit affidavits.)

SOME DISTURBING NUMBERS

The comprehensive published “results” will be in a future report in this series -- view them online here:

http://blog.ronpaul2008.com/ron_paul_2008/2007/08/iowa-straw-poll.html

-- but at this point the reader may want to know that the Iowa GOP claims that Romney came in first with 4516 votes, and Ron Paul came in 5th with 1305 votes.

Hear ye! Hear ye! The Ron Paul Campaign has confirmed to callers what was repeated at the event itself -- that the campaign bought and gave away 800 tickets. The “Adopt an Iowan group” (an independent effort) has published that they had collected $22,500 and purchased 643 tickets. (By the way, since the “Adopt and Iowan” page won’t allow you to copy it, I have printed it out to preserve the documentation.)

So now we are being asked to believe that Ron Paul got less votes (1305) than the tickets purchased by the campaign and the “Adopt an Iowan” campaign (totally 1443) – and that NO ONE in Iowa came on their own to pay $35 and vote for Ron Paul !!!!!

The Ron Paul Campaign AND the Adopt an Iowan campaign kept track of who the tickets were given to (I hope). This is enough affidavits to prove that the announced Diebold “count” was wrong. – And we want to find as many other Iowa citizens as possible who paid $35 out of their own pocket to vote – so we can get their affidavits also.

This seems to be a smoking gun. This will be the greatest and most irrefutable proof ever that a Diebold computer was used to rig an election!

We need the affidavits of any Iowan who voted for Ron Paul at the Ames, Iowa Straw Poll. If we succeed – then we will have the proof that the Diebold computers at the Iowa Straw Poll of 2007 – were rigged.

If you voted in the Iowa Straw Poll on August 11, 2007 – and if you need an affidavit to make sure your vote counts, and especially if you want to help us prove whether or not the result published for Ron Paul was accurate – you can go to:

www.votefraud.org/iowa_straw_poll_2007_report_affidavit_part1.htm

At the top and bottom of that article is a link to the relevant affidavit. Simply right click on the link, use “Save target as” and save the word document to your computer where you can find it. You will then have an affidavit to fill out, and get notarized at a bank, Kinkos, etc., and to mail back to us.

A number of affidavits are already in hand.

End of this e-wire.

Jim Condit Jr.

[George W. Bush]

Ahem. Five threads, if you count the "Day in the life" thread.

Everyone knows she's engaged. Again, I don't think any of those were Breaking News or Front Page.

Were our positions reversed, this is where you'd likely mock me...but I'll just say...Bonne nuit, monsieur.

The point was that no one had reported on an impending White House marriage and its political effect for Bush. And it was not in Breaking News. Or visible elsewhere in our main sidebar.

You don't read very well for someone who claims to be an editor. I notice that your line of reasoning is oblique. You repeatedly fail to read what is written very plainly, then you respond to some other point, make more smarmy comments, write little summaries to misrepresent the views of others while hoping they won't discover them, then get angry when such amateurish tricks are exposed.

So I am, of course, still mocking you.

So, tell me, mighty editor of a nationally known trade journal: who exactly is the primary mover in this little non-story over some crackpots challenging the use of privately owned voting machines in an Iowa fundraising straw poll, an entirely private event to which election laws cannot apply? I've yet to see anyone on this thread who actually understands who was actually behind this charade. Hint: it wasn't Condit who only filed a foolish and inept declaration with the court. The actual court case, such as it was, was filed by others whose relationship with Condit is not fully known.

Or is that beyond the scope of professional editors, to check and to know if a story is reported completely and accurately?

I thought it was fun to see how long such a stupid thread would drag on before someone here finally figured it out. But I can see now it was never going to happen if someone didn't at least point the Paul-haters in the right direction.

Au revoir.

[Mr. Silverback]

You don't read very well for someone who claims to be an editor.

That's a heck of a shot from a guy now claiming that "nada, nothing, zero, zilch" mens something other than "no threads."

So, tell me, mighty editor of a nationally known trade journal: who exactly is the primary mover in this little non-story over some crackpots challenging the use of privately owned voting machines in an Iowa fundraising straw poll, an entirely private event to which election laws cannot apply? I've yet to see anyone on this thread who actually understands who was actually behind this charade.

It was Elvis, working on behalf of the Bilderburgers. To comment further I would have to send you a decoder ring.

[George W. Bush]

That's a heck of a shot from a guy now claiming that "nada, nothing, zero, zilch" mens something other than "no threads."

I was posting about a White House wedding, the first in decades. Your threads were only about the engagement announcement.

Again, you reveal your lack of reading comprehension skills.

It was Elvis, working on behalf of the Bilderburgers. To comment further I would have to send you a decoder ring.

I see. You still don't grasp that Condit is a wingnut and had no relevance to the court case in Ames.

[MEGoody]

Just because something happened once doesn't mean it's going to happen again.

Do you honestly think if we pull out of Iraq now, things are going to be wonderful there? Is that REALLY what you are trying to say?

what proof do you have that allows you to KNOW what is going to happen?

Apparently, you haven't been paying attention to the news out of Iraq lately.

[MEGoody]

Okay. Then veterans don't deserve any honor or deference from you (and many others).

:::rolls eyes:::: Copy and paste where I ever said that. Oh, that's right, you can't. I never did.

Is your huge, non-logical leap an example of the type of 'thinking' we can expect from Ron Paul, or is it just you?

No wonder there are so few vets left at FR.

No veteran of good character is going to say that serving in the military gives anyone a free pass for the rest of their life to do and say whatever they like. In fact, that is what the Swift Boat Veterans were all about - not giving Kerry a pass just because he served. So please, get a clue.

[George W. Bush]

No veteran of good character is going to say that serving in the military gives anyone a free pass for the rest of their life to do and say whatever they like. In fact, that is what the Swift Boat Veterans were all about - not giving Kerry a pass just because he served. So please, get a clue.

So veterans deserve respect for their service from you only if they agree with your political opinions? And otherwise, throw them to the sharks?

[Mr. Silverback]

I see. You still don't grasp that Condit is a wingnut and had no relevance to the court case in Ames.

The condor flies at night. My suitcase has been handled by an elephant. (That will make sense when you get the decoder ring. Allow six weeks for delivery, those Ovaltine people work at glacial speed. I promise neither message is a crummy commercial.)

[Mr. Silverback]

So veterans deserve respect for their service from you only if they agree with your political opinions? And otherwise, throw them to the sharks?

Where the heck do you get off criticizing anyone for their reading comprehension skills when you get that out of this?

No veteran of good character is going to say that serving in the military gives anyone a free pass for the rest of their life to do and say whatever they like. In fact, that is what the Swift Boat Veterans were all about - not giving Kerry a pass just because he served. So please, get a clue.

There's absolutely nothing in MEGoody's posting history that justifies your interpretation.

[MEGoody]

So veterans deserve respect for their service from you only if they agree with your political opinions? And otherwise, throw them to the sharks?

LOL Go back and actually read what I said, honey. Slowly this time, so you understand it.

[George W. Bush]

There's absolutely nothing in MEGoody's posting history that justifies your interpretation.

Except his own recent comments. It's part of a larger pattern here. Look at the attacks on McStain and his service. It's not some isolated event or about Kerry alone. Hence, it is relevant to what I said about the loss of many FR vets to our forum. In the meantime, people throw rocks at the only candidates who did serve and cling with joyous abandon to the candidates who pointedly avoided service. Like Rudy/Mitt/Fred. Apparently, avoiding military service is a prime qualification for being commander-in-chief these days.

I think many people at FR don't like vets unless they join the latest little chorus line. I recall when Colonel David Hackworth was a great hero around here because he offered some token resistance to the . Every little written bowel movement he emitted was Front Page news. In the end, he turned out to be a lib and then you all hated him. Some of us tried to tell people that there were strong indications that he wasn't what they thought he was. But I guess he sold a few books and made some money off some media appearances and then everyone trashed him.

Of course, the most recent incident was the Matt Sanchez incident. What a hero he was! Until the full story came out. What a sad little event that was. And yet, he did serve honorably despite his lurid past before military service and he was in fact being abused by the Lefties on campus for his military service. Another vet loved and now hated by so many of those who just love "the troops".

Sure, we love the troops. It's the vets that don't fare so well, it seems. But even the DUmmies and the libs all claim the same, don't they?

I'm proud to support Ron Paul, a combat flight surgeon who served honorably and who served beyond his Air Force commitment in the Texas Air Guard. He actually cares about the troops during their service and even after they become vets. Of course, that's probably a strike against him around here any more.

[George W. Bush]

In fact, that is what the Swift Boat Veterans were all about...

It is high irony indeed that you would bring up Jerome Corsi who was probably the single most effective organizer and leader of the Swift Boat crew. Yet another veteran (and a former FReeper) who gets trashed around here. I think any article written by him is automatically pulled these days.

But, hey, we love the troops. At least, until they become vets and actually say something we don't like or agree with.

[xzins]

In the meantime, people throw rocks at the only candidates who did serve and cling with joyous abandon to the candidates who pointedly avoided service.

Duncan Hunter has stellar credentials as a veteran. Additionally, he has not shrunk from having his son also serve.

I think he's far and away the best candidate in the race. However, I don't think he'll compete unless he gets a huge infusion of cash. It's the same for Congressman Paul.

Their chances of winning are remote.

[George W. Bush]

Duncan Hunter has stellar credentials as a veteran. Additionally, he has not shrunk from having his son also serve.

Absolutely. And a very good Armed Service Committee chairman for years. I think we have to credit his son for his own military service though. I doubt Duncan exerted any pressure to get his son to enlist though no doubt the Hunter household discussed the military needs of this country routinely given Duncan's position in Congress.

[MEGoody]

Except his own recent comments

First, I'm a 'her'.

Second, it's a shame you feel driven to try to twist and turn what I have said in an effort to make it sound like something other than what I have clearly stated. I have no idea why you wish to be so dishonest.

Hence, it is relevant to what I said about the loss of many FR vets to our forum.

I'll say again, no veteran of good character would think it a good idea to give someone a pass for the rest of their lives on all they do and say just because they served in the military at one point in their lives.

I'm proud to support Ron Paul

Then I have to tell you, your attempts at misrepresenting what I've said don't reflect well on your candidate.

[George W. Bush]

Then I have to tell you, your attempts at misrepresenting what I've said don't reflect well on your candidate.

I think that your comments and the thinking behind them speak very plainly for themselves. I'm content to let readers judge for themselves.

[MEGoody]

I think that your comments and the thinking behind them speak very plainly for themselves.

I agree. And they don't communicate what you've tried to claim.

I'm content to let readers judge for themselves.

The reader who has commented clearly disagreed with your claims about what I said. So I guess that settles it.

[George W. Bush]

The reader who has commented clearly disagreed with your claims about what I said. So I guess that settles it.

You mean that one of your Paul-hating cronies chimed in on cue.

[MEGoody]

You mean that one of your Paul-hating cronies chimed in on cue.

Call him what you will, no one else has 'chimed in', not even your Paul-loving cronies. So that settles that.

[George W. Bush]

So that settles that.

Not at all. But I can see why you'd want to end the "discussion" so you could slink away claiming victory.

[MEGoody]

Not at all.

LOL I see. . .so even though you claimed you were going to let the reader judge, you've backpeddaled on that.

Well, feel free to keep yammering. It just gives the readers more to judge with.