Voting machines, a MUST in Illuminati overtime

New Hampshire primary 2008 and 2004 for dummies: Barack Obama's role explained

2008-01-09T14:30:00.000-08:00

New Hampshire primary 2008 and 2004 for dummies: Obama's role explained, or How can Hillary Clinton win with 5 pct of the votes?
For the 1000th time: EVERYTHING has been explained long ago! (1)
The magic: voting machines + the candidate who is supposed to lose.
The candidate who will be the first to confirm that illuminati media polls are legit and voting machines count the votes correctly, no matter what. (2)

Notes
(1) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=New+Hampshire+Primary+MattMarriott
Currently #1:
Bush vs. Kerry 2004 was a repetition of the Kerry vs. Dean New Hampshire primary 2003 (1)
http://www.goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=14963
goldismoney.info is one of the many forums managed by the CIA Web of Disinformation where Matt Marriott could post for a while.

(2) The role of all the actors playing Dean, Kerry, Barack Obama or Ron Paul, all over Illuminatiland
http://end-times-computers.blogspot.com/2007/05/ronpaul2008com-barackobamacom.html
http://illuminati-agenda.blogspot.com/2007/05/france-vs-us-elections-for-dummies.html

(3) Laws of End Times Reductionism explain that the script can not only be repeated at will, but also be reduced each time. Because the audience are dummies, aka sheep quietly being transported to the slaughter.
The same laws which explain that Bush could be reelected with 15 pct support, and 4 years later Hillary Clinton will be elected with 5 pct support.
http://last-antichrist.blogspot.com/2007/05/hillary-clinton-2008-for-dummies-two.html

(4) Short after Obama has his most important line in script (5), all truth threads moved to a more or less hidden subforum of DU, the Democratic Party forum (6). Again just a repetiton of what happened at that site immediately after Kerry and Moore were the first to congratulate Bush for the 2004 victory.
(5) Obama congratulates Clinton on New Hampshire win: "I want to congratulate Sen. Clinton on a hard fought victory here in New Hampshire. She did an outstanding job -- give her a big round of applause"
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSWAT00866520080109

(6) New Hampshire primary 2008 - The Facts in the forum of the Democratic Party
Warning..... Do Not Adjust Your Set.... Follow the numbers from our DIEBOLD servers...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x490640 Jan-09-08 01:40 AM althecat
New Hampshire Primary - All Diebold. All the Time. Your thoughts?
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ess=203x490608 Jan-09-08 01:51 AM cyberpj
ALL Diebold, ALL the Time - It's the NH Primary
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ess=203x490891 Jan-09-08 04:13 AM autorank
Clinton? Obama? C H A N G E my ass. Or, some inconvenient T R U T H
http://www.democraticunderground.com...esg_id=2636329 Jan-09-08 05:04 AM BeHereNow

In Forums

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=76052

France 2007 elections: Voting machines decide French President first time ever

2007-04-20T11:50:00.000-07:00

France, Presidential Elections 2007: voting machines introduced just in time to count just enough votes as required. This time there will be no surprises, like in 2005 EU Referendum.

2007: Introducing voting machines in the French elections was not a problem. For a start, they will count 1,5 million registered voters, the amount that was thought to be required to avoid any surprises at this point. Translate from french:
http://www.01net.com/article/346063.html

There will be no surprises this time, as with the EU Referendum, since unlike the YES-NO issue, in these elections the illuminati control 11 out of 12 candidates.

Note how the theater is staged according to the audience: the French John Kerry (Segolene Royal) pretends to be against the voting machines, which are supported officially only by one of the candidates, the french Bush, i.e. Nicolas Sarkozy...(1)

Reminder: voting machines were introduced in France 2005 for the referendum about the EU-Constitution, to count just over 1 million votes. One of the few times they miscalculated in the level required to get the right results:
05-26-2005 - France referendum proves that Diebold machines are now a MUST for the illuminati
http://www.goldismoney.info/forums/s...ad.php?t=21334

Notes:

(1)France vs. US elections for dummies: Sarkozy 2007 compared to Bush 2004 and Bush 2000
http://illuminati-agenda.blogspot.com/2007/05/france-vs-us-elections-for-dummies.html

In Forums

http://www.goldismoney.info/forums/t129264-france-2007-elections-voting-machines-decide-french-president-first-time-ever.html

France: 2005 EU Referendum: 59% say NO; all political parties say YES - or why Diebold machines are now a MUST for the illuminati

2005-05-26T14:38:00.000-07:00

2005 EU Referendum in France: why the conspirators miscalculated

The script that went wrong

Can you imagine a referendum in the US with Dems and Reps using the media 24 hours to order people to vote YES and yet 59% of the people resolved to vote NO?
That´s what happens now in France.
20% advantage in polls for the people against all the parties representing Dems/Reps in the US.
BTW, Illuminati polls put it at "only" 55% to 39%.
Can you imagine what those polls would be, if electronic vote had already been introduced?

Reasons that the illuminati miscalculated

They thought that all parliament parties ordering the sheeple to vote YES would be enough. It wasn´t.
Note: they announced a last minute poll with 52% YES. Despair forcing them to totally expose how they manufacture polls or do they have some trick to count the votes the "right" way?

Another reason why the illuminati miscalculated - they thought that ethnic minorities have already reached the critical mass to decide any election, starting with 7 million muslims including almost 3 million that can vote, which The Times "forgot" to mention, on this article about 1.4 million voters in the colonies:
Chirac counts on jungle tribes to swing EU vote (1)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1622161,00.html

Considering all this, no wonder that as far as electonic vote fraud they thought that phase one (sheeple accept introduction of voting machines in some parts) would be enough, covering about one quarter of registered voters.(2)

Notes:

(1) Notice how the article starts: "Among the Wayampi Indians it is not uncommon for children to give birth at 10 and become grandparents in their twenties."
A lie used to promote the illuminati agenda to legalize pedophilia. Also part of the Big Lie agenda about "primitive" societies.

(2)Introduced in:

Bourg-en-Bresse, Cannes, Nice, Villeneuve-Loubet, Gémenos, Marseille, Royan, Bourges, Brive-la-Gaillarde, Dijon, Bourg-de-Péage, Castanet-Tolosan, Toulouse, Mérignac, Juvignac, Rennes, Saint-Malo, Grenoble, Meylan, La Ferté-Saint-Aubin, Châlons-en-Champagne, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, Lorient, Questembert, Beauvais, Perpignan, Colmar, Mulhouse, Chazay-d´Azergues, Sainte-Foy-lès-Lyon, Le Havre, Niort, Six-Fours-les-Plages, Orange, Les Herbiers, Vouneuil-sous-Biard, Rambervillers, Bures-sur-Yvette, Evry, Juvisy-sur-Orge, Linas, Orsay, Villebon-sur-Yvette, Boulogne-Billancourt, Suresnes, Aulnay-sous-Bois, Rosny-sous-Bois, Marolles-en-Brie, Saint-Maur-des-Fossés and Versailles.

In Forums:

http://www.goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=21334

Handbook of fraud - counting votes - Afghanistan vs. US

2004-12-10T21:15:00.000-08:00

Reminder of what correct vote count is

There is only one way to prevent fraud in the process of casting and counting votes. Reminder, since each day the gap to the reality of current elections is widening :
- one representative of each candidate at each ballot
- each voter identified by unique ID document;
- each voter manually checked in the voter list entry, as he presents his ID before voting
- votes counted immediately after the ballot, under supervision of representatives of each candidate, which will then sign the count protocol
- results sent to the central entity in charge of computing the totals

Techniques to falsify count - overview

There are two types of techniques to get the "right" results in an election :
Type 1 - making sure you count the votes
Type 2 - any other techniques

Even the worst type 1 technique is x-times more powerful than the best type 2 technique.
The most powerful technique ever created is e-vote (Diebold machines, internet vote, etc).

Now for obvious reasons the people that organized the farse they called free elections in Afghanistan couldn't get the right results by resorting to e-vote.

The technique used in Afghanistan - ink was a diversion

So what was the trick to get the right results in an election with 18 candidates, where the candidate that had to win had less than 5% of the voters behind him ?

Pretending that the main problem in the elections in Afghanistan are ink marks that can be erased (a type 2 technique) is pure diversion, obscuring the fact that type 1 techniques were used. The most important :
- the ballots were transported, without being previously counted at the ballots, to military bases, where they will be "counted"

In Forums

10-12-2004 - http://www.goldismoney.info/forums/t14077-handbook-of-fraud-counting-votes-afghanistan-vs-us.html