November Surprise?
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Scott Swett, writing at The American Thinker, asks the following question:
[D]espite the looming prospect of electoral dismemberment in November, the Democrats continue pushing a radical agenda: piling up debt and creating new entitlements, with crushing tax increases inevitably to follow. Why the evident lack of concern? [link dropped]Perhaps they really believe their own propaganda -- that Americans will like what we're getting once we see what it's like. Perhaps they hope that the changes they are making will permanently alter the political landscape in such a way that, as Mark Steyn once put it will, "make limited government all but impossible." Perhaps, as Swett, argues, "they intend to cheat." Perhaps the answer is, "all of the above."
Amid numerous examples of such cheating, Swett ominously notes the following:
A PowerPoint presentation available at ElectionCenter.org describes new election legislation proposed by congressional Democrats. They intend to nationalize voter registration and force the states to eliminate voter ID checks, provide absentee ballots to all voters, register voters on Election Day, and permit felons (who overwhelmingly support Democrats) to vote. Each of these measures would create new opportunities for fraud. [links dropped]Perhaps some of the many links he provides within his article discuss this issue, but Swett does not explicitly mention another possible mechanism: tampering with electronic votes. But then again, does he really have to?
Consider all this the cloud to the silver lining of what Matt Drudge called Barack Obama's "0-4" electoral record this morning upon Arlen Specter's primary loss. This record will serve as "evidence" that there is nothing going on in the event that the Democrats feel like they can get away with voter fraud on a massive scale and actually attempt it.
-- CAV
4 comments:
If the Democrats really go super far in terms of stealing critical elections - well, in this day and age of the alternative media, it will be widely known by the opposition that would otherwise have been the majority and won. That isn't going to sit too well. Such people will not sit back in frustrated resignation the way the would and have when they lose legitimately and lawfully conducted elections.
Right now, people's frustrations over the authoritarian nanny state that is being shoved down the country's throat is focused in the way that the law and the constitution intends for it to be focused: persuading enough people to vote the creeps out of office.
If things get to the point that people suddenly have good reason to believe that such efforts are essentially a waste of time because no matter how successful they may be at persuading the American people and getting enough votes, the election will be stolen - well, the consequences will not be pretty.
People in this country still have enough fight in them that they aren't just going to sit there and "take it" and become good little serfs and give unquestioning obedience to our Nanny State.
For that reason, I don't think the Democrats have a chance of getting the sort of Nanny State that they want. But what could very well happen, however, is they plunge the country into some sort of civil war. Or it could cause certain states such as Texas to simply refuse to be part of it.
I am inclined to think that the Democrats are operating on a scorched earth policy premise. I think their premise is if they cannot have the power they have lusted after for decades, that if the backward bumpkins in this country are too stupid to appreciate the Nanny State they have in mind for us - well, then to hell with the country and let it burn. It is not like they have ever particularly liked this country much in the first place.
I don't even think this attitude is new to them. I remember back when I was in high school, it suddenly occurred to me that people like Ted Kennedy viewed average freedom loving Americans as a bigger threat than the Soviets. It occurred to me that people like Kennedy would much prefer the USA to be some sort of Soviet satellite state with them running the show than for it to remain strong and free but with them out of power.
I think that is the same with the Democrats today. If Americans don't allow them to run the show - then to hell with Americans and America. If it means that trying to pull off the last minute power grab they have been lusting for for decades risks the collapse of our currency and our economy, if it risks plunging the country into civil war or bloody chaos - then so be it. To these people, power is everything. And if they can't have that power, then nothing really matters much.
That, by the way, is what dictators do when they lose wars. When it became clear that German defeat in World War II was inevitable and Allied troops were marching in, orders were given to leave nothing behind but ruins so that those who eventually took over would have nothing - with no regard, of course, for the average Germans who would have to try to make lives for themselves after the war. Fortunately, a lot of people, even within Hitler's own government, saw that this was madness and found ways not to carry the orders out. As morally bankrupt and corrupt as today's Democratic Party is, if it chooses to also go down that path, hopefully there are enough underlings who also refuse to carry it out or at least speak out against the madness for similar reasons.
"For that reason, I don't think the Democrats have a chance of getting the sort of Nanny State that they want. But what could very well happen, however, is they plunge the country into some sort of civil war. Or it could cause certain states such as Texas to simply refuse to be part of it."
This is what I am most afraid of.
Gus,
Wish I could agree with Dismuke
[re:] "If the Democrats really go super far in terms of stealing critical elections - well, in this day and age of the alternative media, it will be widely known by the opposition that would otherwise have been the majority and won. That isn't going to sit too well."
Can an administration replete with lawyers and clear majorities in pertinent committees legitimately investigate itself?
My professional experiences tells me otherwise. The last recourse could again be SCOTUS, another branch of our federal government monopolized unfortunately by lawyers.
To stop expected organized election irregularities and frauds we must be more proactive and vigilant than ever before.
Do we all trust our local election officials and supervisors to identify and report gross voting irregularities? The time to apply pressure on them started yesterday, in my humble opinion.
"Can an administration replete with lawyers and clear majorities in pertinent committees legitimately investigate itself?"
Yes, but not this one.
In any event, I don't think Dismuke was saying they'd do the investigating, no do I think that such would be necessary. (e.g., See the Tea Party investigation at the end of the Swett piece.)
Post a Comment