The Democrats' final recourse: Massive vote fraud
By Selwyn Duke
The reports are rolling in from all over the country. A Craven County, NC resident attempts to vote a straight Republican ticket but his choices come up straight Democrat four times, despite receiving assistance from poll workers. In NC's Lenoir County, registered Democrat Ervin Norville also tries to vote straight Republican but finds that his ballot has the names of several Democrat candidates selected. Boulder City, NV resident Joyce Ferrara says that when she and several others went to vote for Sharon Angle, they found that Senator Harry Reid's name was already checked off. In Dallas County, TX' congressional district 30, Democrat Eddie Bernice Johnson's name was the only one on the ballot in a few locations (no, she isn't running unopposed). And some states have been late in mailing out military absentee ballots, whose recipients, interestingly, are known for their Republican leanings.
These happenings are generally referred to as "mistakes" and "glitches," but if that's all they are, then we're witnessing a truly historic anomaly. Because either the mainstream media is now suppressing stories of mistakes and glitches benefitting Republicans, or the laws of probability have suddenly been rescinded and tossed coins are coming up donkey tails every time. Welcome to American elections, Venezuelan style.
I have long said that this election would see vote fraud of unprecedented magnitude. And it does seem that a perfect storm of such criminality is brewing. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just struck down an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship to vote, a treasonous act that facilitates vote fraud. Of course, some liberals are more forthcoming about their intentions; in Portland, ME and New York City, there is a push to allow non-citizens to vote. Not to be outdone, San Francisco seeks to allow even illegal aliens to cast ballots in school elections. Hey, why not? They're not illegals — they're undocumented Democrats.
Then there is the matter of the fox guarding the polling house. It has now been learned that the technicians who work on the Nevada voting machines that have been checking off Harry Reid's name are members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), a leftist organization that has given tens of millions of dollars to Democrats. (By the way, do you remember all the complaints about "antiquated" paper ballots after the 2000 election? I knew that all the talk about "hanging chads" and the need for modern technology would lead to vote fraud. After all, now elections can be swayed by a well-placed, skilled hacker and there's no paper trail.)
Add to this the fact that the left is more brazen than ever. For one thing, laymen liberals, like their judges, are very influenced by precedent. And the liberal delusion that George W. Bush stole the 2000 election — thus drawing first blood — gives leftists a handy rationalization for actually stealing elections. Second, Barack Obama's DOJ's refusal to prosecute the Philadelphia Black Panthers — despite videotape evidence of their voter intimidation — sends the message that the left has almost carte blanche to sway elections by any means necessary.
Most of all, though, we have to remember that leftists are, well, leftists. They are simply much more corrupt than those on the right. I know, this sounds like blind partisanship, so I'll explain.
I'll introduce this with a point once made by former military-intelligence man Ralph Peters about how you could understand the Taliban: You have to view them as aliens. His point was that most people have trouble conceiving of mindsets radically different from their own and, consequently, often mistakenly assume that others operate by the same principles they do. Even liberals recognize this phenomenon — when they warn of "ethnocentrism." I, however, am more concerned about conservocentrism.
If you're an average bright-eyed conservative and you really want to understand leftists, begin by viewing them as aliens. Because they really aren't like you, and the difference isn't simply ideology, either. They truly are far more dishonest, deceitful and manipulative than conservatives.
Liberals have more than one "truth" from which to choose, something they readily admit to with pronouncements such as "That is your truth; someone else's might be different." To be precise, however, they use the word "truth" loosely, as a synonym for taste, and don't actually believe in Truth, properly defined (i.e., divinely ordained morality). They are moral relativists.
What does this mean? It means the sky — or perhaps I should say the netherworld — is the limit for behavior restrictions. Unlike Islamists, they don't have to find their justifications in medieval texts or complex philosophical contortions, as their credo is simple: "If it feels good, do it." Without belief in anything that transcends man to use as a yardstick for behavior, they ultimately have nothing left to use but the "god within," which is just a gussied-up name for emotion. And their emotion-driven ends really do justify their means. If they feel conservatives are "evil," conservatives must be. And if they feel that any tactic necessary to vanquish that evil is fair game, it must be. Understand that beneath the light of their deified feelings, lying, cheating or stealing to win elections is not merely justifiable — it is a "good," and one they do with the only approval they need: self-approval. They are aliens from a planet much like the Hell described by the Devil in an old comic strip (in The New Yorker, I think) when he said, "There's no right or wrong down here. It's whatever works for you." It is a place where there is a wall of separation between man and Truth.
And the truth is that in this election, as in every one, some races will be close enough so that vote fraud can be a factor. So how should we proceed once results are in? First, conservatives need an attitude adjustment: They have to understand the nature of their enemy (as outlined above) and become warriors. We mustn't for a moment entertain the notion that the best thing for the nation after a suspicious loss is to concede the race graciously. Rather, the best thing for the nation is to oust the alien vote-snatchers from power by any moral means necessary.
Second, we must recognize that razor-close races almost always go Democrat for a reason (think: Al Franken in Minnesota) and view every such loss as a probable vote-fraud scenario. Then we must analyze exit polling — which has become a very precise science — for discrepancies between its findings and election results. And when they are found, the matter must be sifted to the very bottom.
Alien vote-snatchers are worse than murderers. They not only steal votes but also our future; they undermine the rule of law and threaten the republic itself. In a saner time, they would probably be hanged. And if it becomes apparent that the government — the Eric Holder DOJ, judges and others — has become so corrupt that it will preserve its power by negating the votes of the people, then we should consider our Founding Fathers' words: "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…."
Let's see if the attempt at alteration works this November 2.