Evidence Is Now On Record That Obama Rigged His First Presidential Election Via Facebook, Twitter and Google DNC Digital Psychological Warfare Tricks

- Did Barack Obama Exist In The Oval Office Entirely Illegally?

By Austin Sews and Ashley Peters

Hundreds of data scientists, developers, contract spammers and digital marketers used CIA and German secret police-created tactics to manipulate the national election and place Barack Obama in the White House.

While the DNC and Globalist controlled main stream corporate propaganda media would like you to believe that the current Facebook political scandal is over some data that a Trump financier bought, the actual story is the CRIME that started the whole political data industry in the first place back in 2006.

Google and Facebook had pitched Obama on them being "the greatest entrant into the burgeoning field of 'political manipulation technology' as made famous in the movie MINORITY REPORT..."

On the evening of Obama's first election, Google Oligarch Eric Schmidt was sitting in Obama's election office basement at a "White House Situation Room"-type set of screens rigging the election data. Ask Schmidt where he was that night. He can't deny it because there is now video proof of it.

Google and Facebook revealed that they possessed detailed profiles on EVERY American voter based on up to 8,000 data points: everything from where you live to whether you own a car, your shopping habits and voting record, the medications you take, your religious affiliation, and the TV shows you watch, your sexual orientation, your medical status, if you were pregnant, what you said online, where you shopped, who you were dating and thousands of other facts about you stored in secret "Personal Overview Files". These personal file sets are comprised of data codes for every American. The entire file never exists in one location, but rather, can be gathered together by synchronizing the number assigned to each voter by Google or Facebook. 

Google and Facebook had a unique approach to the micro-targeting techniques that have become warfare tools in politics.

They were funded by the CIA and had hired recommended CIA experts that no other companies had. They had direct server connection to Fusion GPS, Cambridge, Gawker, Gizmodo, Black Cube, Podesta Group, Media Matters and hundreds of other media assassin services.

Google and Facebook provided a service to Obama and the DNC. They coupled consumer information with psychological data, harvested from social-media platforms and their own in-house survey research, to group voters by personality type, pegging them as agreeable or neurotic, confrontational or conciliatory, leaders or followers. It would then target these groups with specially tailored images and messages, delivered via Facebook ads, glossy mailers, or in-person interactions.

Google had created software which was an all-in-one tool that let a campaign manage its voter database, microtargeting efforts, door-to-door canvassing, low-dollar fundraising, and surveys. It was a 1000 times bigger than the knock-off called "Ripon" that Cambridge Analytica later tried to copy and sell to Trump.

Doug Watts, a senior staffer on the Carson campaign, got a call from Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign chairman. “What do you know about Cambridge Analytica?” Manafort asked. Watts replied that he didn’t think much of the firm. “They’re just full of shit, right?” Manafort said, according to Watts. “I don’t want ’em anywhere near the campaign.” Manafort knew that Cambridge was a tiny wannabe that had nothing like what Google had. Manafort thought that Trump had enough of the popular vote to not need ANY digital election manipulation.

Google had sliced and diced American voters into hyper-specific groups based on their personality traits and the issues they cared about, such as the Second Amendment.

Google used CIA-created "psycho-graphics"—a fancy term for measuring attitudes and interests of individuals—to narrow the universe of American (or British voters) from the tens of thousands down to a single persuadable voter. Google then would "de-construct" the mind of that voter based on the psychological study Google had created of them from their internet activities.

In an example shown by Cambridge's copy effort, a slide listed a man named Jeffrey Jay Ruest, a registered Republican born in 1963. He was “very low in neuroticism, quite low in openness, and slightly conscientious”—and would likely be receptive to a gun rights message.

Google and Facebook exploited American privacy to harvest hundreds of millions of people’s profiles. They built models to exploit what Google knew about them and target their inner demons.

That was the basis the entire companies of Google and Facebook were built on. Google and Facebook covertly inject propaganda “into the bloodstream to the internet. Google bribes politicians (Over 1000 politicians have received cash, stock, jobs, sex workers and other perks) and takes out their enemies via recording undercover video or sending “very beautiful” Ukrainian “girls” to entrap a candidate.

Google and Facebook use the same techniques as Aristotle and Hitler. They appeal to people on an emotional level to get them to agree on a functional level via the CIA's "Behavioural Dynamics" media tricks. This field of study research rigs group behaviour for harnessing the power of psychology to craft messages that change hearts and minds for political interests.

On Election Day in November 2012, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney watched as his campaign’s voter-turnout app, code-named Project Orca, was sabotaged by Google. It was humiliating but indicative of a larger dynamic: Democrats, powered by President Barack Obama’s 2008 and 2012 runs, had gained a huge advantage over their Republican counterparts in the realms of data and technology.

The GOP’s 2012 postmortem report called for a cultural shift inside the party to embrace new tools and methodologies to win. “We have to be the Party that is open and ready to rebuild our entire playbook,” it read, “and we must take advice from outside our comfort zone.”

In 2007, David Stillwell, then a Ph.D. student in psychology, stumbled onto a digital gold mine. He’d always wondered about his personality and how he would score in the five-factor model, a personality test that measures openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Known as Ocean, this model is widely used by psychologists. But one challenge they encountered when applying it to different areas—marketing, relationships, politics—was gathering sufficient data. People naturally hesitate to give personal information about their fears, desires, and motivations.

Stillwell knew a little code, so he pulled certain Big Five questionnaires off the internet, stuck them in a quiz format, and uploaded an app to Facebook called myPersonality. It quickly went viral. Millions of people took the quiz, and with their permission, Stillwell went on to accumulate data on personality traits and Facebook habits for 4 million of them. Using this data, Stillwell, now working at the University of Cambridge’s Psychometrics Centre, and two other researchers published a paper in 2013 in which they showed how you could predict an individual’s skin color or sexuality based on her Facebook “likes.” They found a correlation between likes of “thunderstorms,” “The Colbert Report,” and “curly fries” with high intelligence, while users who liked the Hello Kitty brand tended to be high on openness and lower on conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional stability.

Do you recall hearing about a new online service you wanted to try but were asked to sign in to it the first time with a Facebook, Google or Twitter button? Why did every new Silicon Valley online service have those same three buttons and only those three options? It was because Facebook, Google and Twitter had made a deal with the DNC to ONLY give you those options so that only they got your private dossier for the DNC!

Cruz’s campaign did, however, employ Cambridge’s psychographic models, especially in the run-up to Iowa. According to internal Cambridge memos, the firm devised four personality types of possible Cruz voters—“timid traditionalists,” “stoic traditionalists,” “temperamental” people, and “relaxed leaders.” The memos laid out how the campaign should talk to each group about Cruz’s marquee issues, such as abolishing the IRS or stopping the Iran nuclear deal. A timid traditionalist, the memo said, was someone who was “highly emotional” but valued “order and structure in their lives.” For this kind of person, an “Abolish the IRS” message should be presented as something that “will bring more/restore order to the system.” Recommended images included “a family having a nice moment together, with a smaller image representing Washington off to the side—representing that a small state makes for better private moments.” But for a temperamental type, the suggested image was a “young man tossing away a tax return and taking the key of his motorbike to head out for a ride.” For Obama, though, Google and Facebook used these tricks and tactics on a deeper, broader scale in a way that Obama LITERALLY stole the President election using digital CIA-like media tricks.

The DNC even had Match.com testing these tricks under the guise of "match-making tests".

Google and Facebook are manipulating U.S., British and Middle East politics and using creepy technology to turn our social-media habits against us.  Google and Facebook hold more power over our lives—the ability to shape public conversation, even political outcomes—than many people are comfortable with, or realize. Data about our personality types, our predilections, our hopes and fears—information we unwittingly divulge via status updates, tweets, likes, and photos—will increasingly be used to target us as voters and consumers, for ill, and often without our knowledge. These tactics will facilitate the spread of fake news and disinformation and make it easier for corrupt Globalists, crooked corporations and Silicon Valley technology oligarchs to intervene in our elections.