Posted on 08/17/2007 10:46:03 AM PDT by 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.
That is a very valid point.
However, Dr. Paul does appear to attract more than his share of such people as supporters.
All candidates seem to attract some fanatical supporters that seem a bit divorced from reality, and sampling the actions of a few of them hardly makes them representative of Dr. Pauls supporters as a whole.
However, in my opinion Dr. Paul does attract more of these people because of his views on the issues.
Ron Paul has some good points, and everyone is misconstruing his position on 9-11, but his supporters and Brownback's supporters are the nuts that the nuts call nuts.
I’ve just not found that site to be particularly useful in rating candidates. For example it calls republicans who vote against teachers unions and increasing school funding as having an ‘anti education’ record, which to me is actually a pro education record. It gives one liners that don’t tell the whole story, which I think is better given in the Wikipedia article. Just my opinion. :)
Ya, and I do think states rights and consitutional issues explain a good portion of votes that on the surface one might disagree with.
Then again, there are somethings I strongly disagree with RP over, such as the earnmarks explanations... doesn’t fly with me, but it is impossible to agree with someone 100%, you just gotta take the best you can get. :)
Apparently, you haven't been paying attention to the news out of Iraq lately.
Bzzzzzt! Try again.
And "paying attention to the news out of Iraq" hardly allows you to KNOW what is going to happen in Iraq after we leave. All that does is tell you what is going on now, not what will happen in the future.
And in Breaking News...claims of Iowa straw poll fraud continue.
My post wasn’t a dig at Paul supporters. A Freeper had asked me about the rules for threads that are classified in the sidebars. I was just pointing out to her that there don’t seem to be clear rules.
I’m not sure there are any sidebar rules these days. No discernible system of classification like we once had. Just keep watching the sidebar, you’ll see what I mean.
It’s perplexing. Thanks.
So are you saying we should just pull out and to heck with trying to determine what is likely to happen if we do?
And "paying attention to the news out of Iraq" hardly allows you to KNOW what is going to happen in Iraq after we leave.
So you think that what is going on there now provides no indication of what will occur if we pull out now?
Are you a supporter of Ron Paul? Do you believe your thinking is indicative of his reasoning?
David Duke's official website still speaks glowingly of Ron Paul. That truth has not changed.
BTW, how'd your boy Rudy do in the straw poll?
Yawn. I am not a Giuliani supporter. A Giuliani nomination would be a disaster for the GOP. A Paul nomination would demonstrate that GOP membership had fallen off 99% between 2004 and 2008.
AGREED!
The particular individual who wrote this article, Jim Condit, Jr., has for years caused much greater damage and dissension in the realm of religion - and ironically regarding a vote count as well.
Dr. Paul's focus on the U.S. Constitution is paralled in the religious sphere by Roman Catholics' adherence to the unchanging teaching of Christ and of His Church. The fact that that teaching was changed after 1958 and during Vatican 2 by the various conciliar 'popes' necessitates one to fall back on the admonition of St. Paul and reject the new teachings and teachers as no longer being part of the Faith or of the Church:
Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Galatians, Chapter 1, Verses 8-9:
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
What Condit and his friends do in the religious realm to confuse this clear teaching with their incredible foolishness, is to instead assert that another individual, Cardinal Giuseppe Siri of Venice, was instead elected pope in the 1958 Conclave but "surreptiously" and invalidly forced to resign by the nefarious powers that be.
The following web site is either Condit's, or of a former associate of his, and the parallels of the assertions of fraud against Siri versus his assertions of fraud against Dr. Paul are uncanny:
Oh really? It appears that Duke just 'spreads the love around'.
Incidentally, the link maintains that Tancredo is quoted in the article as having heard that Duke endourses him.
Now, are you ready to repudiate your false claims?
I stand by my original claim: David Duke is a Ron Paul booster.
your "original claim" was that David Duke endoursed Ron Paul for president.
That has now been proven to be incorrect. You already knew that there was no endoursment from Duke, yet continued to insist that there was such an endoursment.
Are you now willing to repudiate your false claims?
Apparently, he's also quite the Tom Tancredo booster.
Would you like to explain to Jim Robinson why, on a Conservative website, you feel it necessary to smear a good man like Tom Tancredo as some kind of Neo-Nazi?
I mean, just following your perverted illogic to its conclusion...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.