New-AFP-Web-Header2 Amazon
left_menu7Free issueSubscribe
left_menu9Online Edition
left_menu13First AmendmentHistoryLinks

Institute for Truth Studies






Both in New Hampshire and Iowa, Ron Paul supporters allege foul play


By Pat Shannan

There is overwhelming evidence of computer vote fraud in New Hampshire. A small town tax collector has admitted to dumping 31 Ron Paul votes but has excused herself with “It was a mistake.”

Town Clerk/Tax Collector Jennifer Call was forced to take her phone off the hook the day following her state’s primary in response to the hundreds of phone calls. She did not accept or return AFP calls.

Rep. Paul (R-Tex.) who stands for everything American, is anathema to the New World Order and could set their plans back a century with his proposed destruction of the privately owned and controlled Federal Reserve banking system. He has long realized that his maltreatment by the press is the norm rather than the exception.

The Faux News snub was the last straw, and when they refused to allow Paul a seat at their New Hampshire debates on January 6, it showed just how far their management will go to deceive the public. The deck is stacked against Paul.

One of the earmarks of computer vote fraud surfaces when all the candidate’s percentages remain almost the same throughout the evening as the totals increase. This was reflected in the first hour of TV reporting in New Hampshire on January 8. The purpose of torpedoing Paul at this early stage is to keep his name out of the news. He cannot be allowed to win or even make a strong showing in any of the primaries lest the power structure be jeopardized.

On the Sunday night prior to the Tuesday vote, Paul supporters were in the streets of downtown Manchester when they spotted Faux talking head Sean Hannity inside a restaurant having dinner. They stood on the sidewalk outside the window chanting their familiar “Ron Paul, Ron Paul,” until Hannity rose to leave. They greeted him outside and followed him back to his hotel with new, derisive and unprintable chants. Paul had not been allowed to participate in the nationally televised debate but some “anointed” candidates with far less following and fewer Iowa votes the previous week were seated.

Paul finished (officially) with a dismal 8% of the New Hampshire vote, but those aware of the computer operator’s ability to defraud the citizens of honest returns were skeptical. Jim Condit of Ohio has exposed vote fraud for 15 years. Condit pointed out some interesting discrepancies.

For instance, how can Paul be near the top in every straw vote and No. 1 in most of them, yet (officially) finish with but 10% in Iowa and 8% in New Hampshire? In a poll from the “Primary New Hampshire” website, Paul was leading even the eventual “winner” John McCain at noon on voting day: Paul: 26.5%, McCain 26.4%, and Giuliani at 5.9%. But the finish showed Rudy had jumped to 9%, McCain added nearly half again at 38%, while Paul somehow fell back to 8%.

Such a scream from the wilderness could be cast aside as mere “sour grapes” except for the fact that Dr. Paul has scored highly in poll after poll on the Internet and with local straw votes all over the country. His national following is enormous. One NewYork radio station has him running as high as 60% in recent weeks.

Leonard Seagren, owner of a cigar shop in Portsmouth, N.H., continued his store’s 24-year tradition by conducting a matchbook poll the week prior to the vote. Seagren boasts an 80% accuracy rate over the years. Last week’s results showed Paul winning with 31% over McCain with 27% and Obama beating Hillary again.

Could all the polls be so far off the mark? It’s doubtful, but any speculation is a long way from proving vote fraud. However, this next example leaves the New Hampshire officials with a lot of explaining to do.

There is a little town called Sutton, and 386 people voted there, but not one for Paul, at least not from the official count. However, as of noon the next day, 31 people, after angrily viewing the results in the morning newspaper, had come forward to say publicly that they had voted for Paul.

By mid-afternoon, the echoing uproar was heard nationwide via talk radio, with dozens of callers urging Paul to ask for an investigation of this and other suspect precincts. These would include but not be limited to:

Roxbury (33 votes cast, 2 for Paul), Landaff (91 cast, 3 for Paul), Greenville (144 cast, 0 for Paul), Waterville (71 cast, 1 for Paul) and Easton (52 cast, 3 for Paul).

In addition, AFP has learned that of the 302 voting precincts in New Hampshire, 175 were computer-counted and 127 were hand-counted. However, the 175 machines accounted for 81% of the total vote, while the 127 hand-counted areas handled only 19% of the total vote. Of that 19%, however, Paul’s percentage total nearly doubled to 15%.

If this proved to be the case state-wide, Paul actually garnered 15% of the vote rather than 8%. He would have placed third in the balloting and remained a strong contender in the eyes of the nation.

It is apparent that this obvious fraud and suspected fraud elsewhere in the state was not restricted to the Republican Party. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) seems to have taken a hit, too. After leading Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) by double digits, Obama went down in defeat in the last hours of the Democratic primary voting.

People deserve the government that they elect, not one foisted upon them.
Paul should not give up this revolution, even if the propagandizing media never give him a fair shot. First, he must contest this vote fraud in New Hampshire. Then, if the Republicans continue to reject this grassroots movement—the biggest in decades–and continue to choose from their “anointed” bunch only, then Paul should move his supporters away from the Republican Party and into a newly formed independent party.

More from American Free Press Associate Editor Pat Shannan can be seen at

(Issue #3, January 21, 2008)

Please make a donation to American Free Press

Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003