2004 Election Watch: How the Democratic Party plans to steal the presidency
"If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a pre-emptive strike,"
- Excerpt from �Colorado Election Day Manual: A detailed guide to voting in Colorado� similar playbooks have been released by the Kerry-Edwards campaign to all �swing� states.
As in 2000, the Democratic Party has already gone to the courts to try and secure a victory for Senator John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential Election. In late summer Democrats began by launching law suits to keep presidential candidate Ralph Nader from ballots in swing states fearing he would take away voters from their candidate. Now that we have moved into the final days of the election lawyers for the Democratic Party have turned their focus back to voter intimidation and disenfranchisement.
In the last weeks Democrats have alleged Republican�s have been disenfranchising minority voters with three basic tactics:
1. GOP attempts to suppress votes of those who have not checked a box certifying they are U.S. citizens and eligible to vote.
2. GOP attempts to suppress provisional ballots cast in the wrong district.
3. Poll workers bar people from voting because they can�t produce identification.
As we breakdown these accusations we can see what Democrats really believe about voting. Let�s look at 1. GOP attempts to suppress votes of those who have not checked a box certifying they are U.S. citizens and eligible to vote. That can and should be read as Democrats seek to validate votes of people unwilling to certify they are U.S. citizens. How about number 2. GOP attempts to suppress provisional ballots cast in the wrong district. This can be read as Democrats seek to allow voters to cross into neighboring districts and vote on issues and candidates not relevant to their home districts. And finally, 3. Poll workers bar people from voting because they can�t produce identification. Possibly the worst one that can be read as Democrats seek to allow identity theft in the voting booth.
Any objective person can clearly see what is wrong with what the Democrats are trying to do. It is the law that you must be a U.S. citizen to vote and in most states not be a felon. When a person registers to vote, they must certify they are a U.S. citizen so that there is a penalty of perjury if they cast an illegal ballot. Do you want illegal aliens coming in from Mexico or Canada or members of Al Qaeda electing your President? Should foreigners have a vote in who runs our country when we have no say in who runs theirs?
How about casting provisional ballots in neighboring districts or districts across the state? It just might be that you are away from your home district. That�s why most states have early voting and all states have absentee ballots. So what justification is left for allowing the practice of crossing city our county lines to cast a ballot? In my city we are currently voting on whether or not to allow liquor stores to stay open on Sundays, holidays, and to extend hours past 10:30 PM. Would it be right for someone in another city, who might already have these extended hour rules in place, to cross over into my city and cast a negative vote that benefits the economy of his city and hurts mine? Or what if in two neighboring districts one is heavily Republican or Democrat and the other is 51%-49% for the other party. Should the district that is heavily for one party be able to send a few thousand of its voters over to the next to sway it from 51%-49% to 45%-56% and thereby get an extra member of the U.S. House or state rep? A provisional ballot, for those who don�t know, is a ballot that you allows you to fill out a vote if your name is not listed on the voter registration rolls. The idea is to protect voters from human error that may have left them off. Voters won�t find their name of registration rolls outside their district and by allowing people to vote outside their district you allow them to vote in their district then drive up the road and vote again in the next district and so on. One man, one vote becomes one man, as many votes as you can cast in a day.
The worst thing the Democrats could be arguing is that of polling places requiring people to produce valid identification to prove that they are indeed the person they are claiming to be voting for. We have seen Democratic operatives in Illinois get out the dead people's votes time and time again. It has happened so many times it�s almost as if it has become an acceptable practice for them. They shrug off accusations with a laugh. And now with Democrats paying people to register to vote, we have thousands of people claiming they received voter cards in the mail but never registered, the election offices saying thousands of voting cards have been returned undeliverable, and even instance of fictional characters registering to vote. In Iowa 95% of eligible voters have registered, in Colorado 98% of eligible voters have. Similar numbers can be found in swing states across the country. Think about those numbers. That basically means every single person not in prison has taken the time to register to vote. Although it is a nice thought, it is utterly ridiculous to believe that there is such active participation in this year�s election. How many people do you yourself know who won�t be voting and who didn�t give a rat�s ass about registering? I can name a whole lot of people that have been so disenfranchised by partisan politics they have taken such action, or non-action rather. So what do all these fraudulent voter registrations have to do with checking ID of voters? It�s quite simple, people intent on fraud can register hundreds of people that have not nor will not have plans on registering or voting and go out and regitser them, go to the poll place and vote as them. Democrats by fighting the requirement of providing identification are saying they want fraud to be as easy as possible. There are absolutely no valid reasons for not requiring identification.
So as the news becomes filled with allegations of voter intimidation and disenfranchisement over the next several days I want you to think about what is being alleged. What are the consequences of allowing or disallowing such an argument? And most importantly who is really being disenfranchised by the actions of democrats? Is it the guy who wants to be able to vote in the next district or who is an undocumented worker from Mexico or is it you and me, the legitimate voters, the citizens of the United States, the ones who are used to showing identification when we vote, when we board airplanes, purchase alcohol, or go to a casino, the ones who read the clearly printed directions on our registration forms and ballots and follow those directions to be sure our vote counts?
Have fun,
j
0 people think they have something witty to say about this entry.
