January 9, 2008: Knowledge Fight dissects Alex Jones’ baseless claims that Diebold machines and "cocaine dealers" rigged the New Hampshire primary against Ron Paul, citing Sutton’s corrected 31 votes as proof. Despite a recount showing just one extra Romney vote, Jones insists on fraud, ignoring rural-urban turnout gaps or standard reporting practices. His cherry-picked stats—like Paul’s 9.11% in three counties—rely on numerology and misdirection, fueling conspiracy theories that Dan Friesen warns could escalate to violence, while Jordan Holmes mocks the absurdity of his unfounded narratives. [Automatically generated summary]
And so through doing that, I end up listening to a bunch of episodes that we don't end up using because they're not good or they're not good for live shows.
So I wanted to go to the past, so I decided there were two options.
We could continue in 2004, which we're not abandoning, but it would be, you know, we could go to the 2004, or we could do this episode that I decided was good, but not for a live episode.
So this was a pretty big deal in the 2008 primary season in January, when Hillary Clinton didn't cry, but welled up a tiny bit when answering questions.
At an undecided voters meeting.
She was asked how she keeps going on the campaign trail, and she said it was hard, but she loved the country, and while answering, she looked like she was expressing some real emotion.
This was notable because the press liked to characterize Hillary as a heartless robot type, in no small part thanks to the inherent misogyny that ran under media coverage back then and to a lesser extent still.
If Hillary showed normal human emotion, she would be branded as too emotional to lead on account of her irrational femininity.
Conversely, if she showed no emotion, she was a calculating, power-hungry machine with ice water in her veins.
Basically, the media had a negative way to frame her actions, no matter how she acted.
After this incident in 2008, Hillary pulled out an unexpected win in the New Hampshire primary, largely due to a surge in women voters turning out.
The polling about this primary was all over the place, and part of the reason was the chaotic beginning to both the campaigns for Obama and for Hillary.
Hillary was the presumptive favorite before the primary started and was polling way ahead.
Then, Obama won the Iowa caucuses, and Hillary came in third, behind Obama and John Edward.
Obama carried that momentum, and Hillary's campaign took a huge hit in people's estimation.
Polling numbers went way down.
And this is part of what's in the background of that question she was asked at the voter meeting about how she keeps going.
It obviously wasn't all about her emotional moment, but she overperformed in New Hampshire.
Anyway, the media has now made it a story that Hillary was showing emotion and people in Alex's media space have decided to argue whether she was faking it or not.
And like I said, I think Alex just likes doing voices.
Yeah.
I think she's a voice actor.
That is true.
Was Star-Lord supposed to be Star-Lord in Guardians of the Galaxy?
Okay, they're having to spin right now nationally that, okay, Barack Obama was between 10 and 20 points, depending on the poll, in every poll, ahead of Hillary.
And polls have always been accurate until Diebold gets involved.
And magically, he was winning in the areas, the 20% of areas where there wasn't Diebold, and then, of course, losing where there was Diebold, just like...
The individual who's the head of the Democrats right now, who I don't trust, but he wasn't the anointed one.
He wasn't George Bush.
He wasn't John Kerry.
And that, of course, is Howard Dean.
And he won in New Hampshire as high as 10 points.
Some areas lower, some areas higher, but on average the news reported 9 to 10 points.
In the areas that have paper ballots, but lost by 10 points in the areas where it was die-bolt.
The three-state area, 80-plus percent of the ballots are controlled by one company and one man.
So if you follow, the argument Alex is making is that the reason the vote didn't match the polling is because of Diebold voting machines, which naturally were used to steal the election.
This is an early run of some of the same shit Alex did about Dominion and Smartmatic in the 2020 election, so I thought it might be interesting to take a look at this whole election-stealing talk and how it manifested back then.
The implication of Alex's point, which he'll go on to make repeatedly, is that there is a noticeable difference in the voting patterns in areas that use optical scan technology to count votes and those that do hand counts.
If this was the extent of Alex's point, then he would be correct.
Researchers at William& Mary Law School did an analysis of this primary and found that Hillary got 4.3% more of the vote in machine wards, whereas Obama got 6.1% more in hand count wards.
This is interesting.
But it doesn't really tell us anything on its own.
There are plenty of reasons that this disparity could exist, other than fraud being carried out by voting machines.
However, Alex doesn't work like that.
There's the appearance of something that works for him, so he jumps to the conclusion that he was already planning to report, and then he asserts it to the audience as studied fact.
The William and Mary analysis went a little bit deeper and had this to say, quote, By most of the leading candidates who competed in the 2008 New Hampshire presidential primaries.
They went on to say, quote, It was a limited sample due to the requirement of finding wards that could be matched, but their analysis found no reason to believe that the method of vote counting was responsible for one candidate doing better in places that counted votes one way as opposed to the other.
It was a function of wards having different political preferences.
So anyway, Alex just has something that looks weird, and he's found the easiest and most convenient explanation for it, which just so happens to be the one that's in line with his narratives, and so that's the truth, and we've proven it.
But it is like how we get here is not Alex's fault.
It's not in a sense in this sense, right?
Everybody can hear Alex go like, oh, in one there's data machines and in others there's not and there's a difference and everybody can go, well, if those two things are true and there's no other details I need to know, you are correct, sir.
No, in a sense, there's so much of our world that is just, like, ultimately coming down to people convincing you you've already critically thought and people trying to convince you to start because it's never happened before.
So at this point in time, Alex is running a website called the Ron Paul Wool Room.
It's a pretty standard, like, WordPress blog of the time, except that users could register and then post whatever they wanted, so there's a bunch of different authors posting various gripes about how too few people like Ron Paul.
Sure.
Seems like a number of them are pretty defensive about the racist stuff he published in his newsletter, too, which makes sense.
What happened in Sutton was that a family of folks on the Ron Paul war room noticed that they had voted for Paul, but in the media, it was reported that he got zero votes in that town.
There was an administrative error where the clerk had sent the media the wrong number, which was corrected before the clerk even got to work the next day.
It was a tiny bit of human error, but because it was related to Ron Paul, whose most ardent supporters are weirdo conspiracists, this became evidence that the whole election was being stolen to prevent Ron Paul from easily winning, which he would do if people didn't just get in the way.
We'll get into this more as the episode goes along, but that's what this is about.
An administrative error that was quickly corrected in a town where Ron Paul...
We got 31 out of 423 votes cast in the GOP primary.
When Alex mentions Bev there, he's talking about Bev Harris, who's a noted crusader against electronic voting and enthusiastic participant in what Alex is gearing up to do in this episode.
Right.
She is basically a Ron Paul advocate more than she is an expert in anything.
And if I'm given the opportunity to recreate the universe, I don't know if I will be, but if I'm given the opportunity, I will give a lot more weight to people when they say stuff like, can't we just not with this?
That should be almost a sacrosanct.
As a species, we should all hold in highest regard if somebody says, can we just not do this?
Based on Bev's reporting and based on everything else you can tell here, all that happened was that the wrong number was conveyed to the media.
There's no reason to jump to the conclusion that these 31 votes were misreported in terms of official vote tallies, but that's not a detail that's getting any attention here.
All we know is that someone didn't send the right number to the media.
It truly is like an absolutely 100% real conspiracy that we all know that sounds as ridiculous and movie-like as we can imagine, but they lose by 31 votes.
Alex needed a narrative to distract away from how unpopular Ron Paul is so he decided to jump on this administrative error to use it as proof of voter fraud.
In the process he put a real human in the crosshairs as a person who's to blame for screwing over Paul and she had to pay the real consequences of his actions.
This dynamic exists in a lot of Alex's stories but it's very often the case that the harm that's done is too obscure to end up being documented or he's vague enough to have plausible deniability that his actions didn't lead to this harassment.
What happened to Jennifer Call happened to a lot of people because of Alex.
It is strange that there's no, like, there's nothing to learn other than sometimes in this life, in our society, yours will just get exploded for no reason.
And a lot of times it's like, you know, like if you look at it in this case, it's someone who's just going about their business and someone else had a different agenda and you were collateral damage to it.
We caught this because our listeners at ronpaulwarroom.com, an entire family, the parents, the out-of-the-home 20-something-year-old children, all five of them went down to vote, and then they watched the results, and it said zero, baby, and now you called the town clerk.
The way that a hand count can be rigged is, and here's what they're doing in New Hampshire, they have the people are counting everything in public real nice, they fill out a form in public real nice, and then they transfer it to another form, and they call that a summary sheet, and that's the one they send in.
And so what happened is she said they did not transpose the number correctly and put zero instead of 31. That is unacceptable as an answer.
So they're very clearly directing the audience to miss call, and they're loading them up with the accusation that whatever mistake her office made was an intentional act to rig the primary against Ron Paul.
This is just overall, top to bottom, unacceptable behavior from both of them.
And Bev is just wrong.
She says that the form that Call sent out had a zero for Ron Paul, but it didn't.
From the Concord Monitor article, quote, the slot next to Paul's name on the original return sheet said 31, but a space on Call's return next to Paul's name remained blank.
She didn't write in a zero.
She forgot to enter a number.
I know that sounds like splitting hairs, but it's not.
Because writing in a zero implies some level of intent.
Maybe you actually don't have any intent, but you could.
It looks like you had to take an action.
Whereas it's much easier to understand something being left blank as being an accident.
Alex and Bev are incentivized to fudge whatever details they can to make this seem more like voter fraud because their candidate sucks and they can't accept that.
Yeah, the other thing that is made, the point that's made in these articles from around that time that I think is really true is, like, you can fuck up like this when it's Giuliani.
You can fuck up like this if it's, you know, Romney.
But you cannot fuck up like this with Ron Paul.
His audience is all conspiracy theorists.
They're all paranoid weirdos.
Not all, but you know what I mean.
You have to be right every time, or else they're going to exploit the fuck out of it.
And that's what you're seeing here.
So Alex, obviously, this is grounds for a recount.
His audience helped raise the money for the Paul campaign, and Dennis Kucinich from the Democrat side also joined in for the call for the recount, and it went down.
In the GOP primary, the only result of the recount was they found one more vote for Romney.
Hey!
I like that.
Yeah.
So Alex is kind of giving up the game there a little bit.
He wants a recount because it would get national attention.
He has to know deep down that Ron Paul sucks and that a recount isn't going to turn up a bunch of votes for him, but this is a great opportunity to grandstand, and not for nothing, all attention for Ron Paul is positive for him.
So I put together a spreadsheet and put it on the website for everyone to use to put their own results into, which outlined every one of the 250 New Hampshire townships and which voting system they used.
And there was also a discrepancy.
The voting machines gave him worse results than the hand counts.
Someone like Alex has this position that, like, obviously Ron Paul is right about everything, and everybody likes him because he's right about everything.
So that clip reveals a weird instinct that Alex has.
Bev says that she has exclusive news to break, and instead of just letting her talk, he jumps in and tries to guess what the news is, referring to something that she allegedly posted on her website prior, but she said that she hasn't even posted about this thing yet, so that can't be what it is.
Then Alex comes up with this story about Hillary kicking Ron Paul poll watchers out, which Bev says is just a rumor she can't substantiate, and Alex shoots back that it was in the Boston Globe.
She tried to protest since she can't back up the claim, and Alex has asserted his dominance, indicating that he's not gonna let this go, and so she demurs.
This is hardly the first time that she's talked to Alex, though, so I have no doubt that she understands that when Alex says that something was reported in some outlet, there's no reason to assume it actually was.
But when he says something like that, you know he's not gonna budge.
So you might as well just let him have his way, move forward.
And like you said, there's no personal loss that if it turns out to not...
This all traces back to someone named Ken Hajar, who people are saying was arrested for drug possession and intent to distribute.
I was able to find a blog post on this on a website called Op-Ed News from January 9th, but I think that it's piggybacking on Bev's coverage because it was posted at 9.30pm, which is after this.
On this blog, there's a link to what appears to be a court document that very well may be real, reflecting that Ken Hajar pled guilty to an offense listed as, quote, sale slash CND.
In September 1987.
That's 21 years before this episode was recorded.
It's unclear what the precise crime was, but it does appear that it may have been something with drugs, since I think CND stands for Commission on Narcotic Drugs.
I'm not sure exactly, but if you search for that specific charge, all you get is other blogs talking about Ken Hajar.
So now there's another problem here, which is that the person who works at LHS is named Ken Hajar, but this indictment is for someone named Kananth Hajar.
It's hard to tell if this is a typo or if this is actually a different person or if that's what Ken's short for.
I tend to think it is a typo if it's a real document, Full name is.
That is entirely possible.
But more importantly, I don't really care.
I don't think a minor drug arrest 21 years in the past precludes someone from being able to be employed by a company that provides support for elections.
A further point is that one of the other sources cited in the op-ed news article claims that Hajar doesn't even work on New Hampshire elections with LHS, so this seems entirely irrelevant.
Even more to the point, he's in sales and marketing with the company.
He's not even the person, like, going around and servicing these machines.
This is just people grasping at straws, trying to use one person's supposed criminal record to paint an entire company as criminal.
And it's pathetic, because at this point, Alex is supposed to be this libertarian opposing drug laws.
He's making a big deal out of a pissant drug arrest 21 years in the past just because it's convenient for him.
So you can see how Alex has taken this one thing, and now he's speculating wildly that it's probably because there's actually more votes than even we know.
I've seen some blogs suggesting that that's why he got a deferred sentence for his arrest, which is a convenient way for them to explain away this light sentence.
So they did a recount, and it turns out Ron Paul just sucks.
This is all just completely unfounded speculation that Alex and Bev are engaging in.
They have one example of an administrative error.
From that jumping off point, they're taking all of the places where Paul performed poorly and saying the same thing must have happened here because it's all a conspiracy against Ron Paul.
This is the kind of thing you should expect to see from Alex.
Just utter garbage narrative building meant to push his fake reality onto the audience presented as factual research truth.
What makes me mad about this whole interview is Bev is going on about how she only reports what she can prove and she's a stickler for details, but here she is saying that Ron Paul must have gotten more votes in these towns where he performed poorly.
This is something that I want to point out about these folks.
For them, being a stickler for the details or only reporting what I can prove, that isn't an actual statement of Paul.
It's a description of their brand.
She markets herself as someone who's careful about this stuff, so people will take it more seriously when she says shit like, imagine how many more votes Ron Paul got.
A lot of places probably only list the top three or four vote-getters, and that leaves a ton of votes that end up getting summed up as, quote, other.
For example, at least 20 people got more than 10 votes in the Democratic primary, and that's not even counting the 2,517 votes for write-in candidates.
If you look at the New York Times coverage of the results, there are eight candidates listed.
Then the rest of the others are lumped in as other.
But that doesn't mean that there's anything being hidden.
Manchester is the most populous city in New Hampshire, so you can easily understand how there are more people there, so more opportunities for folks to vote for less successful candidates.
So just for fun, I was able to find the itemized breakdown of votes by town for the Democratic primary.
It's very easy to find 500 votes that would go into the other category in Manchester.
So these folks that I just listed combined for 608 votes in the town of Manchester, all votes that likely would have been neatly compiled into the other category.
This isn't serious behavior that Bev is displaying here.
If she's someone who has any familiarity with elections, she would know that that's what's going on, not that they're secreting away votes for Ron Paul in the other category.
She's not a sincere actor in this information space.
She's clearly someone who's an advocate for Ron Paul, pretending to just be, I can only report what I can prove.
If Bev thinks that all the town clerk had to do on the night of the primary is that, then she's a fucking idiot.
She's minimizing the amount of responsibilities this person had in order to make it seem like there was clearly a conspiracy going on here, as opposed to an understandable administrative error.
Bev has literally zero evidence that there's anything nefarious going on, but that's the line that she's going with, because she's not an expert, she's an advocate.
And Alex has some basic details wrong.
He's saying there were 350-something votes in the town, when there's actually 971.
423 of them were in the Republican primary, but that town held primaries for both parties on the same day.
Alex is fudging the numbers a little bit to make it look like the clerk had less to do that night and to increase the proportion of votes that Ron Paul got.
It's sloppy work all around, but I don't expect anything more.
So, I mean, the problem here, of course, is that even if you are 100% correct, even if this, like...
percentage total of Alex's which is closer to 10% so we'll we'll leave aside the 3% and we'll move it closer to 10% It's not a demographically representative place, but fuck it.
We'll say it is.
It's not fraud or anything like that, but fuck it.
So you can hear in that clip the bullshit branding Bev is trying to hide behind us.
I only say what I can prove nonsense.
She has no evidence that they wrote in a zero, and reporting on this event has been clear that what happened was that the slot on that form was just left blank.
However, it's much more suspicious if someone went out of their way to write a zero, so that's what Bev is going with, even though her stated policy of only reporting what you can prove.
I mean, any conversation about that always reminds me of, like, the first guy to measure the height of Mount Everest measured it at exactly 20,000 feet and was like, well...
I can't do that.
So for a long, long time in textbooks, it was 20,002 feet because that made him look so fucking precise.
I was watching the CNN coverage last night, and I was shocked.
And let me tell you, the card shocked me.
But there was a person with a huge pie wedge in the pie slice graph, and sometimes he was beating Giuliani two to one in the pie slice, and they had the names of everybody except this person was the gray, unnamed person.
So they have these different shades of red, and then they just have a gray, huge pie slice that they kept taking the camera off when it got bigger without a name on it.
It's not even red.
I mean, and it wasn't just for a minute.
This was for like an hour.
How in the world do you justify not naming?
A person in the pie slice when everyone else has a name and having it a different color.
It was the most blatant thing.
I mean, it was just so visual.
It was really one of those things that just makes you sick.
unidentified
You're just going, I don't care what candidate it is.
So I wasn't able to find this CNN coverage itself, so I can't speak to this, but I would assume that maybe the pie slice that was gray was votes that are yet to come in, or something like that.
There's something that explains this that Bev is either missing or intentionally misleading about, but...
This is also where you really gotta squint and recognize that they're arguing about him beating Giuliani.
We just proved that they gave him zero in a town where he had 31, and that's what they're saying, and there's all these other towns that show zero, or 500-plus here, 200-plus there, and we're talking about...
That would make Paul a majority.
We need to know who that other is.
This election all needs to be thrown out.
Put on hold now.
I do not want to see this be a replay of Bush in 2000, Bev, where Gore sits out or Kerry 2004.
We can't have Ron Paul sit out.
I mean, it'd be one thing if we think there's fraud and he showed double in the polls what he actually got.
It's another thing when we've caught him red-handed or when we catch him with convicted traffickers running things.
You saw that he was scary, so you ran away, but then later on you were like, man, he wasn't that scary, so you gotta make it bigger when you tell other people, otherwise they're gonna think you're an idiot for just running away.
So this to me is even more of an indication that it probably was just these numbers that got sent to the media and they're pretending like it was an actual vote theft or whatever.
Truly the ultimate argument so often for people should really come down to...
People are more likely to take the path of least resistance, and the more power you have, the more people love giving you the path of least resistance.
The more you get gift bags just for showing up places, you know?
Like, everything about the more power you have should be more about how people go, I'm going to do less work.
I'm not going to do this insane thing like go to Sutton.
Everyone's waking up, and soon just a few more people, once they wake up, it'll be game over for the globalists, and the patriots can arrest these crooks.
It's always the same story.
We're always almost there.
We're winning and losing simultaneously.
It's, uh, yeah.
Right around the corner, right around the corner.
All we need to do is get my show out to more people, and that will wake up more people to the point where we get to the amount of people woken up that we need in order to defeat the devil.
So Alex, one of the things that you always see when he's developing a narrative, more or less in real time, is you'll see constant repetition of the thing in order to beat out the little touch points along the way.
Ron, Paul's poll numbers were artificially high because Alex was going off things like online polling, which severely exaggerated Paul's real-world popularity.
He was very popular with people who were too online in 2008, but that didn't translate to actual voters.
Pretty much across the board, you are going to see him fall well short of that polling, which isn't proof of him being screwed.
It's really more a warning about putting too much stock in polls.
Particularly the online ones.
Also, Paul getting zero votes in some towns is not evidence that he got screwed.
This town, Sutton, is in Merrimack County, and in that county, there are a bunch of towns where Alan Keyes got zero votes.
Does that mean he was screwed?
Even Giuliani and Huckabee had towns where they got zero votes, but none of that's indicative of votes being stolen.
That 500 votes that Bev brought up weren't uncounted votes.
They were just for candidates who were below the threshold of whatever the outlet she was looking at chose to report.
Alex has decided that it is because that works for him, but there's no basis for this.
And God bless it.
But Sutton is not a major township.
It's a small town and they made an administrative error reporting the results to the media.
You can see the difference between the way Alex reports this story and the actual details of what happened.
He fudges every bit of information he can so it'll fit the predetermined narrative, which is that the globalists screwed up.
Now, before we go to our guest, who is a Vietnam vet himself, he was an acting medic there when their medic got killed in Vietnam, had a lot of experience there.
You know, I know a lot of middle-class people.
I even know quite a few wealthy people.
And all the time I hear about their sister, their brother, their cousin, or them, their child falls off a jungle gym in front of 20 witnesses, breaks a finger, falls out of the tree, falls out of the jungle gym in the backyard or the playhouse, breaks a toe, breaks a foot.
My mother broke her arm.
I broke bones falling out of trees.
My mother would have been CPS back in the 50s, gone forever.
And I talk to them.
I mean, folks, here in Austin, your child bruises their eye.
Your child, they come to school, fall off their skateboard when they're 10. CPS is coming.
Your child tells them I fell off my skateboard.
They don't care.
When I dislocated my shoulder, when I was like 12, wrestling in a pool, you know, chicken fighting on somebody's shoulders, my dad is a dentist, oral surgeon.
He said, I'm taking you to Mesquite to go to the hospital.
Now, they're going to ask you how this happened.
Be very careful and tell them that I didn't do this.
So this is a situation where Tom's 11-year-old son fell after grabbing the handle of a moving car and hit his head pretty good.
Someone in the mobile home park where they lived called an ambulance, and Tom was resistant to their wishes to check the child out.
Sure.
Tom was a medic in the Vietnam War, after all, so his position was that he could be the son's doctor just fine.
His unwillingness to allow the paramedics to check on his son prompted the Department of Social Services to do a wellness check.
Because not letting them examine his son could be a red flag for abuse.
It makes total sense why they could interpret things this way.
It would almost be negligent not to check.
The social services people were able to briefly examine the child, but when they wanted to take him to the hospital to get checked out, Tom refused.
There were real concerns here.
This kid hit his head.
There could be serious trauma that absolutely can't be handled in a home hospital situation.
And here's where things got a little bit out of hand.
Having received a court order, the police All Hazards Response Team showed up and took the child into the hospital for testing against the parents' wishes.
That level of forcefulness is a bit much, but you can also understand their reasoning.
If this kid did have brain trauma from the fall and Tom was refusing to get him help, that's negligent abuse.
Ultimately, they ran tests and found out that the kid was okay, just needed painkillers and an ice pack.
In the end, that's the best possible outcome.
But unfortunately, it also makes the fact that they did this whole raid thing in order to get the kid help seem pointless.
Without getting the kid checked, there was no way to know if it was okay to assume that the kid was going to be okay and just needed home care.
It's pretty easy to understand the state's motivation here, but I will grant that it doesn't seem like it was handled the best way it possibly could have.
From the police side, they said that they told him, they informed him that they had like a warrant and a court order for the kid to go to the hospital and he ignored it.
He says that they never told him that they had that, but I don't know.
This guy seems like an asshole.
So I'm not sure I believe his side.
It is a mess, and I don't know all the specifics about this situation.
But at the end of the day, the kid was returned after being checked out at the hospital, and it's not like there was more harm done necessarily.
So Tom, he has a bit of a demand for lawmakers.
unidentified
Sure.
If I did this interview, I could have a certain few minutes here.
I want to challenge the presidential nominees, all of them.
If they don't hear this, and if their aides and their committees don't pick up this, that's their fault.
But I want to challenge them.
Whoever becomes president, whoever becomes president of this nation, to represent these people and protect this country.
I want them to stand on my door shaking my hand, telling me that I am going to do everything I can to redress laws that do not protect you.
And then I'm going to be waiting for that person, that president.
I'm going to be waiting for them to do that.
And I want them to know that all America is going to be watching.
So you kind of get the sense there that maybe Tom's a bit of an asshole.
Also, in the interview, he said that he was previously arrested for assault with a deadly weapon, which may have something to do with the police response.
He's condescending to this guy about how the presidential election is all staged.
Alex enters his coverage of the election with that conclusion firmly in mind, so obviously everything he finds is going to be evidence of that staging.
The situation in New Hampshire can't just be an error, because that doesn't comport with the overarching storyline, which is that everything is staged.
The narrative is set from the jump.
Everything is staged except what Ron Paul does.
Ron Paul is the most popular candidate, and that scares the globalists, so all the staging will be done to impede his otherwise inevitable win.
All news is filtered through that lens, and that's how we end up getting here.
So, this guy is not on for very long.
But after he leaves, we get another reframing of the Sutton story, and you can see sort of the tweaks that are going along as Alex builds the narrative.
Oh, no, no, I know, but I mean, that's kind of what I'm saying, is like, that because you can be like, oh, yeah, I hate Hillary so much, I can passively come off as supporting a black candidate for president?
So the second misrepresentation in there is that Sutton was the first town that Bev called.
It's not so much to do as the first, it's just that it's the only town they called, because it's the only one where this error happened.
you may notice that there isn't a second town that's been contacted where Paul got screwed, which should be so easy to find if what Alex is saying is true.
That's because all of this, everything that Bev and Alex are doing in this episode, is in service of turning this very small administrative error into proof of statewide and, honestly, national voter fraud meant to take out Ron Paul.
It's a desperate charade, and It is weak.
And that's why you need to keep...
Building on other layers of this conspiracy, other side support.
Oh, yeah, but I mean, look, sure, but the New Hampshire primary is the only one that's happened other than the Iowa caucus, so at this point...
You only have that state.
But there are plenty of places that Alex has said that there were zero votes for Ron Paul, so all of those you should be able to, by this point, Bev's been off the air for a while, so she should have dug up another one.
Vote fraud expert Beth Harris contacted the head clerk in Sutton, Jennifer Call, who was forced to admit that they had reported zero.
See, they did report zero.
We need to add that, by the way.
Who was forced to admit that 31 votes for Ron Paul were completely omitted from the final report sheet claiming human error was responsible for the mistake.
I mean, he'd get 25% in a few areas, 30% in a few.
That's where they didn't have the fix in.
Two or three votes not counted could be a plausible mistake, but 31 votes for one candidate and showing zero?
The classic method for rigging a hand count is to write the wrong number on the form, Harris told Alex Jones show.
They are continuing everything.
They're counting everything in public.
Real nice.
But fill out a form in public, real nice, and then they transfer it to another form, and they call that a summary sheet, and then that is the one they send in.
So you have it showing 31 votes.
I don't believe that.
He probably had 50%.
unidentified
And then magically, it's, oh, magically, it's zero.
I think what is funny about that is that's one of the few times that Alex has said something that I've directly like, yeah, I know how you feel, buddy.
They're all mob bosses or coke dealers or Chinese generals or espionage or deputy directors of the CIA and they're poisoning us and going after our guns and grabbing our kids and just...
Having their way with us.
You've got this cowardly chicken-necked public trained to just go along with all of it.
And then you've got Ron Paul all over New Hampshire.
It was last night.
It was zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero.
And look, thousands of votes, hundreds of votes in these towns.
It means we're in a dictatorship if they get away with this.
A dictatorship of a bunch of arrogant criminals that need to be defeated.
You understand it's either us or them.
You understand with a historical paradigm that if they continue to grow and they continue to expand their operation, it's going to get really bad.
My back's against the wall.
I just happen to know it.
You haven't figured it out yet.
And I pray every day you'll figure out that your back is against the wall.
These criminals have gotten high-tech.
They're building high-tech control grids all around us to micromanage us and control us because they've got such bad stuff planned for us, they know we're going to go absolutely ape.
We've got to go ape before they're done putting the grid in.
And don't think if Ron Paul loses and gets cheated that we lose.
We're showing everybody the fraud, we're educating everybody, we're growing our movement, chicken necks, and we're that much closer to getting our hands around your throat.
You understand?
unidentified
Because there's some of us that love life and are willing to fight for it.
So, you know, I was doing the show preps, and I think you can probably agree this wouldn't have been the best as a live episode, but it is something that I didn't want to get lost in the shuffle.
There is something really remarkable about how little evidence Alex requires to write a grand story about voter fraud.
And it's been that way for a long time.
Like, the 2020 election is...
No anomaly for him.
It's just that everyone else is taking this more seriously and the candidate is unhinged enough to play into all of these conspiracies and cater to that community.
So we're left in a far more precarious situation.
If Ron Paul...
Well, there's a lot of ifs there.
If Ron Paul had the level of support that Trump has and played along with Alex's games and these kinds of voter fraud things, we might have been in a much different situation earlier on in the country.
I think one of the most interesting things about Alex on today's episode is that he said something that contradicts everything he said, which is like, we have to deal with this now, you know, before.
We're so often obsessed with, like, when does the shooting start?
You know, he gets those calls all the time now.
When does the shooting start?
And Alex has inadvertently revealed something that is true, which is that if any of what he said is true, then you should go ape before shit starts going off.
Because once shit starts going off, it's too late.
You have to destroy the one-world government before it happens, and you end up in a prison planet where you can't stop it.
And yeah, I mean, that is underneath all of Alex's rhetoric, but the conclusion that you draw from it, this idea that you've got to start shooting before it's too late, is an unfortunate parallel.
It is underneath what Alex is talking about, but it's the part of it that you never talk about.
Right, I mean, because what Alex, realistically, what Alex should be doing, if you're Alex...
Trying to believe what you believe and still exist in reality is be like, guys, if we behave extreme now before violence kicks off, if we don't be violent but we still do the stuff, you know, then we cannot be violent.
If we react strong and handle the problem now before it gets out of control, then we don't have to do violence.
Instead, he's just like, hey, listen.
unidentified
They're gonna get us to the point where we get to do some violence.