Democrats and Vote Fraud: On the Road to Rigged Elections

Democrats and Vote Fraud: On the Road to Rigged Elections

By Scott Swett

Lest we forget, Democrats were not given a mandate in 2008 to nationalize General Motors, the insurance industry, and health care. Most Americans want government to be less expensive, less intrusive, and more accountable. Yet despite 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?
Perhaps they intend to cheat.
Examples of vote fraud by Democrats have not been widely publicized, thanks to the symbiotic relationship between the party and most of the media. In 2000, major TV networks wrongly projected Al Gore as the winner in Florida before the polls even closed in the state’s heavily Republican Panhandle. Many prospective voters stepped out of line and went home. Later studies estimated that the error had reduced President Bush’s margin by 8,000 to 11,500 votes.
In his book Stealing Elections, writer John Fund suggests that another 15,000+ Bush votes were destroyed in Democrat-controlled Palm Beach County. Palm Beach reported 19,120 “over votes” — ballots marked for more than one candidate — representing nearly ten times the error rate for the rest of the state. Former law enforcement officials told Fund that stacks of paper ballots had been altered by pushing a thin prod through the Gore column, invalidating votes for Bush while leaving those for Gore intact. National Democrats hired a telemarketing firm to make thousands of calls to Palm Beach County on Election Day, urging residents to say they were “confused” by the ballot. 
Statistician John Lott and others asked for the suspect Palm Beach ballots to be examined when media teams conducted their own Florida recount the following year. The request was ignored.
Motor Voter: opening the door to fraud
In 1993, Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act, better known as the “Motor Voter” law, which requires motor vehicle departments, welfare offices, and other government agencies to provide forms and register voters. Motor Voter made it illegal to check the IDs of applicants and ordered the states to allow registration by mail.
Motor Voter opened the door to a massive increase in fraudulent registrations. For example, the number of registered voters in Philadelphia increased by 24% from 1995 to 2004, even as the city’s population declined by 13%. By 2009, an independent study estimated that America’s voter registration rolls included more than 16 million invalid voters. This provides fertile ground for ACORN and other groups that seek to turn phony registrations into votes.
Democrats have consistently attacked anti-fraud proposals, claiming that they violate voters’ civil rights. In particular, they oppose requiring voters to show identification. A recent poll found that 82% of Americans think a photo ID should be required to vote. However, only 25 states check any form of voter identification, and a photo ID is required by just seven.
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. 
Voting early and often — the risks of early and absentee voting
In 2001, the bipartisan National Commission on Election Reform reported that the increasing use of absentee ballots and early voting is inconsistent with five key objectives of fair elections:
  • 1. Assure the privacy of the secret ballot and protection against coerced voting
  • 2. Verify that only duly registered voters cast ballots
  • 3. Safeguard ballots against loss or alteration
  • 4. Assure their prompt counting
  • 5. Foster the communal aspects of citizens voting together
Nevertheless, these trends have continued unabated. “No excuses” early voting (voting early without having to provide a reason) is now allowed by 36 states, starting as early as 45 days before the actual election. Large-scale absentee voting also creates delays in deciding elections — delays that offer additional opportunities for fraud.
Non-citizens who vote
Many non-citizens use easily-obtained voter registrations to acquire other documents identifying them as U.S. citizens, along with other benefits such as Social Security and even government jobs. According to a recent Heritage Foundation study,
There is no systematic review of voter registration rolls by states to find non-citizens, and the relevant federal agencies — in direct violation of federal law — refuse to cooperate with state election officials seeking to verify the citizenship status of registered voters.

Local officials in several states who tried to remove felons and non-citizens from the registration rolls have also been sued by leftist groups alleging civil rights violations.
SEIU International Executive Vice President Eliseo Medina advocates amnesty for non-citizens (“immigration reform”) as a way of adding 8 million new Democratic voters.
Manufacturing an election crisis
The changes that have made our election system less manageable, less accountable, and more vulnerable to fraud did not come about by accident. They are entirely consistent with the Cloward/Piven strategy, which seeks to undermine government institutions by overwhelming them with demands for services. The goal is to achieve a socialist state that will redistribute the nation’s wealth. ACORN was specifically created to execute this strategy, targeting U.S. elections through its voter mobilization arm, Project Vote. Cloward and Piven themselves were longtime proponents of the Motor Voter Act, and they appeared on the podium with President Clinton for the signing ceremony. Earlier this year, Frances Fox Piven joined the Board of Project Vote
Author Richard Poe writes:
The stated purpose of Project Vote is to … secure the rights of minority and low-income voters under the U.S. Constitution. However, Project Vote’s actions suggest that its true agenda is more radical.  Its activities appear to be aimed at overwhelming, paralyzing and discrediting the voting system through fraud, protests, propaganda and vexatious litigation.
ACORN and Project Vote have been repeatedly cited and investigated for abuses that include turning in fraudulent registrations and destroying applications by Republicans.  Nevertheless, ACORN may be slated to receive as much as $4 billion in Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget. 
Barack Obama ran the Chicago branch of Project Vote in the early 1990s, an effort credited with electing leftist radical Carole Moseley-Braun to the Senate. Multiple scandals and charges of corruption followed, and Moseley-Braun served only one term.
Buying the referee
The Secretary of State Project was created in 2006 by the Democracy Alliance, a 527 non-profit funded by anti-capitalist billionaire George Soros. SOSP seeks to place Democrats in crucial Secretary of State jobs that oversee elections in swing states.  SOSP cash played a key role in electing Democrats in Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, and Ohio in 2006 and in Missouri, Montana, Oregon, and West Virginia two years later.
Minnesota’s fraudulent senator
Years of leftist planning and effort came together in Minnesota in 2008, where the nation’s closest statewide contest pitted Democrat Al Franken against Republican incumbent Senator Norm Coleman. Presiding over the election was SOSP Secretary Mark Ritchie, whose extensive ties to ACORN were predictably ignored by the media. Shortly before the election, Ritchie was asked to investigate serious problems with the registration rolls, including 261,000 duplicates and 63,000 voters who had listed non-existent addresses. He dismissed the request as an attempt “to create a cloud over an election so people don’t accept the outcome.” After the polls closed, Secretary Ritchie reported that his office “received no reports whatsoever” of fraudulent voting.
The final tally showed Coleman with a narrow 725-vote victory. It wasn’t enough. Over the next four days, his lead fell to 221 as officials “discovered” errors in the vote. Most came from three small precincts controlled by Democrats. Other irregularities included “misplaced” ballots turning up in an official’s trunk, and vote total adjustments that affected only the Senate race. The manipulation continued during the official recount, as the Minnesota Canvassing Board detected just enough “ballot errors” to put Franken over the top. John Lott later analyzed the Board’s inconsistent decisions, nearly all of which favored the Democratic candidate.
Some 17,000 more ballots were counted in the Minnesota Senate election than there were recorded voters. Mark Ritchie had dismantled the state’s ballot reconciliation program, which previously required voting districts to validate the number of votes cast against the number of ballots issued.  Outside investigators also found that 1,400 convicted felons had voted illegally.
The Secretary of State Project is supporting Ritchie once again in 2010, pleased with what the organization refers to as “a scrupulously fair and transparent election recount.”
A spark in Houston
Last fall, 35 tea party members in Houston signed up to monitor the off-year Texas elections. The new poll watchers came back appalled at the abuses they saw. Precinct judges regularly failed to check voter IDs, and some even filled out ballots to “help” people vote. Investigating further, they made a second unpleasant discovery: Voting violation reports submitted to the District Attorney’s office after the 2008 elections had yet to be processed or even reviewed. They resolved to make stopping vote fraud a top priority for 2010. 
Now rebranded as the King Street Patriots, the group is greatly expanding its efforts to recruit and train election monitors. With more than 350 already signed up, KSP is well on the way to meeting an ambitious goal — placing volunteers in each of Harris County’s 874 precincts.
Other tea party and patriot groups might consider following suit. Eternal vigilance is often described as the price of freedom, and that promises to be especially true on November 2.

Democrats in the Deathmobile

Democrats in the Deathmobile

By on 3.19.10 @ 6:09AM

Does anyone else remember what happened Jan. 19? Did anyone else watch the confetti fly and hear the band play in the ballroom of Boston’s Park Plaza Hotel two months ago? Or was the election of a Republican to the Senate seat held for more than four decades by Ted Kennedy merely a dream?

Scott Brown won by pledging to be the Senate’s “41st vote” against Obamacare, but Nancy Pelosi and her fellow House Democrats seem intent on pretending that Brown’s historic victory in Massachusetts never happened as they prepare to enact the president’s health care plan By Any Means Necessary.

Pelosi’s implacable determination in the face of such clear indicators that voters oppose this measure has left opponents straining for analogies to describe the arguably unconstitutional process. Lindsey Graham insulted the Japanese by comparing Democrats to kamikaze pilots “liquored up on sake” for a suicide mission. It might be more diplomatic to compare Democratic maneuvers to the Animal House scene of Delta Tau Chi brothers crammed inside their hurtling Deathmobile: “Ramming speed!”

It would all be comical were it not for the possibility that this slapstick legislative fraternity prank — perpetrated by the “Slaughter Solution” with Enron-like accounting gimmicks from the Congressional Budget Office — might yet become law.

How did we arrive at this juncture? Health care was endlessly debated by Obama and the other Democratic presidential candidates during the 2007-08 primary season, creating a partisan consensus that something must be enacted, with only relatively minor details separating the White House rivals. By the time the general election rolled around, however, the campaign focus had shifted to how to deal with the economic meltdown.

When Obama was sworn into office in January 2009, it was understood that fixing the economy was his biggest challenge. His massive $789 billion “stimulus” bill was pushed through Congress with relative ease. He was overwhelmingly popular — in early March last year, he had a 64-percent approval rating in the Real Clear Politics average — and it seemed nothing could stop him from enacting his agenda. In mid-May, Pelosi promised that health-care legislation would “be on the floor by the end of July, I am quite certain,” and the president declared, “We’ve got to get it done this year.… The stars are aligned.”

Despite such favorable astrological omens, when Obama returned two months later from an overseas trip that included a G-8 summit in Rome and visits to Russia and Ghana, Pelosi’s promise was nowhere near fulfillment and Democrats offered hints of panic at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. After a White House huddle, Sen. Max Baucus said, “The urgency barometer is going up,” and a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “There was a strong agreement by everyone in the room that we can get a bill done before the start of the August recess.”

Yet neither the House nor Senate had produced a bill when the August recess arrived and, during town-hall meetings in their districts, members of Congress were besieged by angry citizens whom the Democratic National Committee denounced as “angry mobs” of “right-wing extremists.” Right-wing or otherwise, the widespread anger stemmed from indignation over out-of-control deficit spending and the belief that the Democrats’ focus on passing the health-care bill had distracted them from the more urgent task of fixing the economy.

Unemployment kept rising and it seemed nothing — not even a massive Sept. 12 Tea Party march on Washington — could get Democrats to listen. Just days after Republicans scored victories in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial elections, Pelosi finally got the House to pass the health-care bill on Nov. 7. Reid held the Senate hostage to get approval for a much different version of the bill on Christmas Eve.

Even then, Scott Brown was driving his Dodge truck through the snow en route to the Jan. 19 Senate victory that most political observers at the time believed was the final death-blow to this unpopular legislation. Could there be a more decisive electoral verdict than for a Republican to be elected in liberal Massachusetts on a promise to stop the health-care bill?

Well, the voters be damned. Evidently swayed by White House arguments that “the fate of [Obama’s] presidency” requires passage of the bill, House Democrats seem determined to ignore the meaning of Brown’s election. With the “41st vote” to prevent the Senate from approving a bicameral compromise version of Obamacare, the House is now heading toward a weekend scenario in which they will vote on a completely different piece of legislation while pretending to pass the Senate bill — and then hope that the Senate will play along with the charade.

“They’re obviously not doing this for policy reasons,” one GOP operative who worked on the Brown campaign said last night. “This is political, but nobody can figure out the politics of it.”

Administration arm-twisters are reportedly telling House Democrats that the bill, once passed, will magically overcome the unpopularity that has hitherto plagued it, and that by November voters will forget the extraordinary machinations by which Pelosi accelerated her legislative Deathmobile up to “ramming speed.”

At this point, however, the arguments for passage resemble another Animal House scene, with Obama in the role of Otter when he announces, “I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part.” It remains to be seen whether House Democrats will supply Bluto’s famous answer: “We’re just the guys to do it.”

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Obamacare, Scott Brown

Robert Stacy McCain is co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (Nelson Current). He blogs at The Other McCain.

Dems Craft Plan To Win In November As Heroes Of National Security And Jobs

Dems Craft Plan To Win In November As Heroes Of National Security And Jobs

March 18th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.

reidhome111609

Roll Call:

Senate Democrats are planning an aggressive message campaign between now and November focusing on jobs, national security, the immediate impact of health care reform and their party’s efforts to “take on Wall Street.”

Hoping to reverse some of their political setbacks over the past 12 months, the lawmakers emerged Thursday from a closed-door message caucus — the third such meeting the conference has had this year — energized and saying they were pleased with the party’s direction.

“It was a good meeting … about the challenges we have [and] getting our message out” before November’s elections, Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.) said.

According to Democrats present at the meeting, consultants and staff laid out specific language Democrats should use when discussing issues

For instance, one consultant provided specific examples of talking points members can use. “Here’s our 30-second message and here’s our 10-second message,” one Democrat said describing the presentation, noting that the language lesson was designed to provide lawmakers with a counter to GOP operative Frank Luntz’s work with linguistics.

A senior aide to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) then ran through the basic mechanisms for moving the Democrats’ message, stressing the need for lawmakers to remain unified and disciplined in how they talk about issues. The main point to lawmakers was “message, discipline and repeat,” a Democratic aide explained.

Democrats between now and November are expected to focus on a number of key issues within each of the broader message themes. For instance, on national security they will stress the Obama administration’s successes in killing a number of high-profile terrorists and the continuing successes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On jobs, Democrats will use Reid’s rifle-shot approach to legislation to continually have a series of bills moving through the legislative pipeline to tout and will make a special push on green jobs.

Similarly, Democrats will use legislation being developed by Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) to portray themselves as the party “standing up for the little guy,” and on health care Democrats will stress the immediate impacts of the legislation. The goal on health care will be to “push out the immediate deliverables” to the public in order to explain why reform is benefiting them.

Thursday’s meeting was seen by some Democratic insiders as a key test of whether Reid and his operation have the confidence of the conference’s 22 freshman and sophomore members. Those lawmakers, led by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and others have taken an increasingly prominent role in shaping the party’s approach to battling Republicans. And while Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) was an early convert to their more aggressive style — and Reid has long been hesitant to declare open war on the GOP — it appeared following the meeting the upstarts were pleased.

Obama’s Civilian National Security Force

Civilian National Security Force

BY Herschel Smith
2 months, 3 weeks ago

So Obama wants to quit relying on the U.S. military alone to implement U.S. national security objectives. Okay, in contemporary slang, The Captain’s Journal is “down with that.” So he’s going to get the State Department playing on the same side as the military? Er … maybe not.

View the video vey disturbing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

“Just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well funded.” So the astute observer and deep thinker might reflect for a minute and be compelled to pose several questions (although the MSM won’t).

  1. How will this Civilian National Security Force (hereafter CNSF) be just as powerful as men with guns, artillery, ordnance, war ships and aircraft?
  2. What will make the CNSF “just as strong” as the U.S. Marine Corps?
  3. How will this CNSF implement national security policy?
  4. Since the 2009 budget includes just over half a trillion dollars for defense spending (The Captain’s Journal supports this, and calls for even more), and since it is judged that this CNSF be “just as well funded” as the military, where will this half a trillion dollars come from?
  5. Finally, if he didn’t really mean that this CNSF would be the beneficiary of half a trillion dollars (to do with we don’t know what), then why did he say so?

At any rate, these questions seem to be compelled by the proposal. The best bet, however, is that the MSM won’t pose a single one of them (but we do get to add another snappy sounding category to our stable of articles – Civilian National Defense Force).

Newt VS Pelosi

Newt Gingrich, a Republican, served in the House from Georgia from 1978 and as House Minority Whip in 1989. He was Speaker of the House from 1995 to 1999. During that time he never made use of military air craft.

newtcallistaw2And she has the balls to confront the Big Three CEOs for flying their corporate jets to Washington!

 Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from California, current Speaker of the House. The Pentagon provides the House speaker with an Air Force plane large enough to accommodate her staff, family, supporters, and members of the California delegation when she travels around the country. But, Pelosi wants routine access to a larger plane. It includes 42 business class seats, a fully-enclosed state room, an entertainment center, a private bed, state-of-the-art communications system, and a crew of 16. Pelosi wanted “carte blanche for an aircraft any time”, including weekend trips home to San Francisco. Pretty nice but very expensive perk! Her Air Force C-32 costs approximately $15,000 an hour or approximately $300,000 per trip home.

pelosi_queen_nancy

The Heaviest Element Known to Science…..

The Heaviest Element Known to Science…..
Lawrence Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest element
yet known to science.

The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant
neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons,
giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which
are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be
detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into
contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that
would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years
to complete.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2- 6 years. It does not decay,
but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the
assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Governmentium’s mass will actually increase over time, since
each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming
isodopes.

This characteristic of morons promotion leads some scientists to
believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical
concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical
morass.

When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an
element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it
has half as many peons but twice as many morons.

 

Saul Alinsky and DNC Corruption

Saul Alinsky and DNC Corruption

Diane Alden
Jan. 7, 2003


Saul Alinsky died in 1972. He was a Marxist grassroots organizer who spent much of his life organizing rent strikes and protesting conditions of the poor in Chicago in the 1930s. However, unlike Christian socialist and activist for the poor Dorothy Day, Alinsky’s real claim to fame was as strategist for anti-establishment ’60s radicals and revolutionaries.

Indeed, Alinsky wrote the rule book for ’60s radicals like Bill and Hillary Clinton, George Miller and Nancy Pelosi. He considered Hillary Rodham to be one of his better students and asked her to join him in his efforts as an organizer of radical leftist causes. But Hillary had other fish to fry on her climb to national prominence.

Alinsky had a true genius for formulating tactical battle plans for the radical left. He wrote two books outlining his organizational principles and strategies: “Reveille for Radicals” (1946) and “Rules for Radicals” (1971).

“Rules for Radicals” begins with an unusual tribute: “From all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.”

The devil challenged authority and got his own kingdom, and that goes to the heart of what left is really about. That of course is to get power any way you can, including lying, cheating and stealing. The ultimate rule is that the ends justify the means.

Alinsky asserted that he was more concerned with the acquisition of power than anything else: “My aim here is to suggest how to organize for power: how to get it and how to use it.” This is not to be done with assistance to the poor, nor even by organizing the poor to demand assistance: “[E]ven if all the low-income parts of our population were organized … it would not be powerful enough to get significant, basic, needed changes.”

Alinsky advises his followers that the poor have no power and that the real target is the middle class: “Organization for action will now and in the decade ahead center upon America’s white middle class. That is where the power is. … Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and the way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt. They are right; but we must begin from where we are if we are to build power for change, and the power and the people are in the middle class majority.”

But that didn’t stop Alinsky and his followers from using the middle class for their own purposes. They counted on the guilt and shame of the white middle class to get what they wanted. In order to take over institutions and get power, the middle class had to be convinced that they were somehow lucky winners in “life’s lottery.”

Alinsky’s radicals found a perfect vehicle for their destruction of the American system and more particularly for taking and maintaining power. That instrument was the Democratic Party.

Transition and Transaction

The transition of the old Democratic Party to what exists today should not surprise or confound conservatives. Nor should Alinsky’s tactics seem foreign. After all, for nearly 40 years, Republicans and the conservative agenda have been getting hammered by the left through the successful use of Alinsky tactics.

In that cause, radicals and the liberal-left gravitated toward the print and electronic media, toward the university professorate and the law. The left, consciously or unconsciously, adopted Alinsky’s rules. The impact changed the nature of the Democratic Party and the direction of the United States. Increasingly, the left is succeeding in changing the nature of the Republican Party as well.

Suffice to say the greatest change has taken place in the relationship between the state and the individual. America is rapidly descending from a representative Constitutional Republic to a collectivist empire controlled by elites of one sort or another.

Alinsky’s influence on the modern Democratic Party indicates that the ends do indeed justify the means. As Alinsky states in “Rules for Radicals” it was foolish to believe that means are just as important as the ends. He states that “to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles … the practical revolutionary will understand … [that] in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind.”

Sadly, not enough Republicans and conservatives learned Alinsky’s rules until late in the game. A sign of hope is the fact that the new media, including talk radio and the Internet, are changing all that. One can hope it is not too late.

In any event, Alinsky’s rules include:

  • “Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.” 
  • “Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.” 
  • “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.” 
  • “The threat is generally more terrifying than the thing itself.” 
  • “In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.” 
  • “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.” (Think Gingrich, Lott and the success of name-calling used by the likes of Bill Clinton, Paul Begala, James Carville, Maxine Waters and others against conservatives and Republicans. Think of how Clinton “enemies” like Paula Jones or Linda Tripp were treated.) 
  • “One of the criteria for picking the target is the target’s vulnerability … the other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract.” (Trent Lott comes to mind. Meanwhile, a former Klansman by the name of Sen. Robert Byrd got away with saying “nigger” on Fox News at least three times, and he still maintains his Senate seat and power.) 
  • “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.” For instance, Democrats imply conservatives are racists or that Republicans want to kill senior citizens by limiting the growth of the Medicare system, they imply Republicans want to deny kids lunch money without offering real proof. These red-herring tactics work.

Of course, Republicans reaction to all this is to immediately go on the defensive. Seldom do they unleash their pit bull orators or strategists. Rather than use the immense amount of data available to prove the conservative case, Republicans tug their forelocks, say “yes sir,” and hope the accusations and name calling will go away.Why is it that Republicans consistently fail to point out the monumental failures of the new Democrats? Failures such as the massive disaster that is the “war on poverty.” On that topic alone Republicans should be drilling the public in every media venue and at every opportunity. Then and only then should Republicans offer alternatives to the failed policies of the Democratic left.

Republicans should pound relentlessly on the fact that the Democratic Party was hijacked by leftist reactionaries way back in the early ’70s. The reactionary left is the obstructionist left. They do nothing but defend and cling to the failures of the past. That fact makes them reactionaries rather than radicals or progressives.

Unfortunately, Republicans still pretend that nothing has changed regarding the basic philosophy of the political parties. They refuse to understand the horrendous notion that Democrats tell us the U.S. Constitution is flexible. That means the rule of law is flexible. If that is the case the law and the Constitution mean nothing. It means that the law and Constitution are twisted by the whims and fancies of the moment.

In fact, in the 2000 election Al Gore maintained the Constitution could and should be manipulated because it was “flexible.” Whatever happened to the amendment process?

Bill Clinton used executive orders to circumvent Congress and the Constitution. He used the agencies of the federal government against his enemies. Clinton set an extremely dangerous precedent. Alinsky would have loved it. It is a perfect example of the use of the Rules for Radicals – ends justify the means.

Hillary and Bill Clinton and other powerful former ’60s radicals learned from Saul Alinsky. It is about time that a few more Republicans and/or conservatives did as well.

Alinsky in South Dakota

Remember that Alinsky’s advice was that the ends justify the means. Think of Florida in 2000 and the manipulation of military ballots. Think of Milwaukee and unattended polling places, which allowed leftist college students to take handfuls of ballots to check off. Think of a million immigrants in the 1996 election granted instant voting rights by the Clinton administration.

More importantly, think of South Dakota in November of 2002, or Nevada in 1998 or 2002.

In a brilliant bit of investigative reporting, National Review’s Byron York gave us a grand overview of the corrupt and unpleasant outline of how Alinsky’s rules work during election season. Republicans, once again asleep at the switch, live in the land of euphoria. They still believe that their Democratic counterparts are among the angels on God’s right.

Considering that Alinsky expresses admiration for Lucifer, they are looking in the wrong place to find many modern Democrats. Republicans still assume that the modern Democratic Party, its media sycophants, its operatives during national or state elections, will play fair. It is hard to say which is worse, Republican naïveté’ or Democratic cheating and law breaking.

When Democrats cheat, especially under Bill Clinton’s and Terry McAuliffe’s watch, they whine when they discover they didn’t cheat enough to win. When they are caught in the big lies, they expect Republicans to ignore it and give them a pass. The last election in South Dakota is a case in point.

In the primaries and election of 2002, lawyers from Washington started showing up at polling places in the hinterlands of South Dakota. The Republican leadership and the establishment should have seen it coming but they didn’t.

As Byron York relates in “Badlands, Bad Votes”: “On Election Day, Noma Sazama knew something unusual was going on the moment she arrived at her polling place, the St. Thomas Parish Hall in Mission, South Dakota. Sazama, a member of the local election board, noticed several strangers in the room – an unusual sight in Mission, population 904, where most people know one another. It turned out the strangers were all lawyers, Democrats who had come to town to serve as poll watchers for the race between incumbent Democratic senator Tim Johnson and Republican John Thune. One was from Washington, D.C., another was from New York City, and a third was from California. ‘There were no locals, and I’ve never seen that happen before,’ says Sazama, who has lived in the area for 73 years.”

Furthermore, York maintains, “The Democratic team of lawyers confiscated the Parish Hall kitchen only a few feet from the balloting tables.”

Witnesses swore in affidavits that party hacks had rented dozens of vans and hired drivers to bring voters to the polls. Lawyers from elsewhere made the Parish Hall their headquarters. Seventy-three-year-old Ms. Sazama stated, “They had the names and time-of-pickup and whether someone voted on them, and from those he would contact the drivers.”

Finally she understood that the influx of outside Democrats were going to use the polling place as their headquarters, an action which is against the laws of South Dakota.

The lawyers tied up the phones, which meant that the poll watchers and election officials could not make needed phone calls. York quotes the election supervisor: “They were on the phone using it to call I don’t know where, and I needed to call because we had some new districting. They were always talking on it.”

When Wanless, the election supervisor, protested, she got a chilly reaction from the out-of-towners. “I felt like they were trying to intimidate me,” she recalls.

In fact, all this is against South Dakota law, which states: “No person may, in any polling place or within or on any building in which a polling place is located or within one hundred feet from any entrance leading into a polling place, maintain an office or communications center. …”

There were no Republican lawyers or authorities around to inform election officials that it was against the law for the Democrats to be running their campaign from a polling place. That was bad enough, but ever since November Republicans have failed dismally to make it a BIG national issue.

There was also complete failure to understand Alinsky’s second basic rule: “Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.” The DNC counted on the locals being intimidated by a gang of high-priced lawyers – and of course they were.

Another Alinsky rule used in the November elections in South Dakota: “In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.” In other words, what you do is count on the failure of will by your opponent to call a foul. The opponent usually believes it is easier to do nothing, it is always easier to do nothing, and so Republicans “move on.”

That is the kind of apathy Hitler’s forces counted on in the Weimar Republic. The end-justifies-the-means cabal figures that even good people find it easier to do nothing.

In South Dakota, lawyers from diverse places were part of a brigade that the DNC uses to “ensure voters’ rights are protected.” But as York relates, “According to the testimony of dozens of South Dakotans who worked at the polls, the out-of-state attorneys engaged in illegal electioneering, pressured poll workers to accept questionable ballots, and forced polling places in a heavily Democratic area to stay open for an hour past their previously-announced closing time. In addition, the testimony contains evidence of people being allowed to vote with little or no identification, of incorrectly marked ballots being counted as Democratic votes, of absentee ballots being counted without proper signatures, and, most serious of all, of voters who were paid to cast their ballots for Sen. Johnson.”

According to some witnesses, Democrats were also running car pools out of polling places on the Indian reservations, where investigators are discovering that the dead Indian vote had a major impact on the slim, last- minute, 524-vote Tim Johnson victory over John Thune.

Affidavits from South Dakotans also indicate that money probably changed hands in crucial areas in the boonies. It was not gas money for van drivers either, but paying per head per vote – shades of Tammany Hall and the elections in Boston wards. Nonetheless, Republicans have decided to “move on.”

To get the entire story, including affidavits sworn to by South Dakota residents, read York’s November article in National Review Online.

Alinsky Does Nevada

When I worked at Nevada Policy Institute in Nevada several years ago, the Post-election analysis of the 1998 election uncovered the fact that family pets received absentee ballots in crucial districts. Dead people were counted as well.

Democratic Senator Harry Reid’s slim, 428-vote win against Republican John Ensign raised eyebrows and the juices of some who understand how the modern DNC and its phalanx of wheelers and dealers, lawyers and opportunists really work.

A part of the tactic includes breaking the law when you can and where you can get away with it. Remember, in the minds of the hijacked Democratic Party the ends do indeed justify the Luciferian means.

In Nevada on Dec. 24, 2002, the FBI seized ballots cast in primary and general elections. Said Daron Borst, FBI special agent in Las Vegas, “There is an ongoing investigation into election fraud, but I can’t go into any details due to the nature of the investigation.”

Ballots were taken after a complaint was lodged that 85 voters in tiny Eureka county did not live in that county or were long dead. The Eureka County probe marked the second time this year the FBI has become involved in a county election in Nevada.

As in South Dakota, it is much easier to get away with election fraud where people don’t know the law or will not enforce the law or they are intimidated by the chutzpah and law breaking of crooks in Armani suits holding credentials from the Democratic National Committee.

Unfortunately, when Republicans don’t pay attention to the corruption and allow themselves to get screwed time and again, they are also in league with the devil. By this failure of will, the sins of omission are as evil as sins of commission.

Voting fraud was rampant in 2000 and again in 2002 and it will be more so in 2004. Why aren’t Republican lawmakers and the RNC making sure this does not happen again? In 2002, Terry McAuliffe told the world that Democratic lawyers would be out in the states keeping an eye on things. They did more than that and it was against the law.

The failure of Republicans to impose the rule of law on the cheaters, liars and manipulators allows those who use Alinsky’s corrupt system to win. That fact tells us that the voting process means as little to our elites as does the Constitution.

Because of that fact, Republicans will lose future elections. More importantly, the people of the United States will lose.

The RNC and the GOP leadership just don’t get it. Otherwise they would care enough to do something about it.


Diane Alden is a graduate of the University of Minnesota with degrees in political science, economics and history. Dubbed the “prairie pontificator,” she also has grad work in international economics and international political movements, plus extensive work in the psychology of behavior in disordered children, women’s issues in Third World countries, creative writing, and marketing. With a sideline in American Indian studies and independence and secession movements worldwide, she is also working on upcoming changes in Canadian politics and the flux in the political landscape of North America.
See her full bio

TYSK Note: Learn more about the Alinsky Method, the Delphi Technique and “facilitators”. If you work for a major corporation or a school district, you are sure to have come face-to-face with this method of group manipulation or, group mind control under the guise of using the “team” approach to problem solving. Click on this link for a short overview article. Once enlightened you are sure to want to know more. Do a Google search on either the Alinsky Method or the Delphi Technique. You will not only learn of its insidiousness, but also see how many groups proudly claim to use these methods to obtain results!