Everyday new evidence is uncovered which details the level of corruption in the Democratic Party. For many years, both the Republican and the Democratic Parties were plagued with a small but embarrassing amount of bribery and fraud. 1960 was the year that the Democrats put the pedal to the metal and zoomed right past the GOP in the electoral corruption sweepstakes. Many historians today accept that John F. Kennedy only beat Richard Nixon because of voter fraud in Texas and Illinois. In an election that was decided by less than 119,000 votes, serious questions remain to this day regarding the eighty-nine percent turnout in Chicago's suburbs (Kennedy won Illinois' huge electoral prize by just 8900 votes, and won Texas with a razor-thin race due to documented cases of ballot-box stuffing). Since then, Democrats have consistently topped the GOP with regards to fraud allegations.
The contested 2000 presidential election between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore was a question of electoral law as opposed to fraud, but the 2008 election between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama included numerous allegations of intimidation and ballot-box stuffing, especially in Ohio. 2012 saw a repeat of the problems in Ohio, with even more claims of irregularities. In 2012, unlike 2008, Republican officials in Ohio were able to collect evidence of multiple cases of ballot-box stuffing, precinct worker intimidation, and precincts reporting one-hundred percent counts for one candidate. The Justice Department, which has the obligation to investigate electoral fraud, announced that the allegations did not meet the threshold that would trigger a federal investigation; this decision was made before any of the evidence had been examined. Eventually someone was convicted, but the great majority of the cases were never prosecuted.
In the run-up to the 2008 election, the national Democratic Party really got their act together. They realized that many traditionally Democratic voters were not registered, while others were not being encouraged to vote. Others needed assistance to reach the polling station. Kudos to the Democrats who put together a well-organized plan to register new voters in heavily urbanized areas, and to guarantee that those voters showed up at the polls on election day. Special emphasis was put on registering African-American citizens, who have traditionally voting for Democratic candidates over Republicans by a wide margin. Democratic activists have expanded this effort to include Hispanic-Americans, who also traditionally support Democrats. This nation-wide drive has had a significant impact on electoral politics. Experts point to Virginia and Florida, both former Republican states but now leaning Democrat, as a good example of the impact of this effort. Both states voted Democratic in 2008 and 2012.
In 2016, the Republicans finally discovered a game-changing strategy of their own, and it had everything to do with the candidates themselves. Well-known businessman and billionaire Donald Trump announced his candidacy as a Republican, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared as a Democrat. It would have been difficult to find two more polarizing candidates, at least as far as Republican voters were concerned. Republicans went wild over Trump's brash style and willingness to speak his mind, even if it meant insulting his opponents. On the other hand, the average conservative voter seems to have a special animus towards former First Lady Hillary Clinton. Vote totals in one GOP primary after another would set a new record. It became apparent that the number of Republican votes was bound to increase substantially, and Hillary Clinton did not inspire the same kind of excitement amongst Democrat voters. The Democrats had no other option but to fall back on their other reliable method for increasing votes: fraud.
With just over two weeks to go before the election, reports are popping up in Virginia, North Carolina and Florida of vote tampering and other forms of electoral cheating. Evidence of fraud has turned up in Texas, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Ohio. To add gas to the fire, Independent Filmmaker James O'Keefe produced an undercover documentary highlighting the Clinton Campaign's efforts to train its volunteers in how to commit voter fraud. The Clinton Campaign subsequently fired two of its campaign coordinators, but the cat was already out of the bag, folks. This election will probably be decided by the electoral votes from one or two of the batleground states. On that list are North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida. Acceptance of this organized effort to steal an election is not only un-American, its criminal. Now we understand why Democrats are so opposed to instituting a photo identification requirement at polling stations, and allegations that the Democratic Party supports amnesty as a method to increase the number of Hispanic-American voters doesn't seem so unreasonable after all. Not only does Donald Trump have to deal with a politically-biased national media, he now must confront potentially rampant electoral fraud and a Justice Department that is determined to protect his Democratic opponent.
Showing posts with label Florida. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Florida. Show all posts
Sunday, October 23, 2016
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
Who do you believe is responsible for the bloodshed in Orlando?
(Before I begin a new Blog Post, I want to say how grateful I am to the Comal County (TX) Republican Women's Club and Joyce Yanuzzi. I was afforded the opportunity to speak with this group on Monday night and made many new friends. I also was fortunate to run into a few old friends, including Comal County Commissioner Jen Crownover. I had such a wonderful evening with this intelligent, engaging group of Comal County citizens, and was reminded that folks are paying very close attention to politics in 2016, Personally, I feel much better with that little bit of knowledge.)
Late Monday evening I took the time to read an editorial on FoxNews written by FoxNews contributor Greg Gutfield. I usually appreciate Gutfield's perspective, and his clear, concise and flowing style is welcome. I'm sure I'm not alone when I express an annoyance with self-important commentary that prides itself on how many times the reader has to retreat to a dictionary. Notice to all online contributors: most people don't bother with the dictionary; they just move on to the next article. Gutfield decided to pen this particular commentary after observing the collective response of the media to the events in Orlando, Florida on June 12/13th. So what did happen? How would you answer that simple question? From my optic, on July 12/13, at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando Florida, a fanatical Islamic Terrorist opened fire with various weapons and killed forty-nine innocent people. As Gutfield so deftly points out, the American people seem to be split regarding the cause of the violence in Orlando. According to Gutfield, The New York Times blamed Republicans for the attack, and the Huffington Post blamed Christians (I had trouble excepting this as fact, so I did my homework, and Gutfield is spot-on). In the South and in the Red State heartland, people blamed fanatical Islamic terrorism. I wish I had the tools to take a poll of my readers because I would be fascinated to know where you assign blame.
If we cut through the politically correct crap for a few minutes, this one is truly a no-brainer. The Left/media continues to try and create this evil boogeyman "The Christian Bigot" in America, because the are so desperate for him to exist (and yes, I made it a "he"!). The fact that we have no examples of reprisal attacks following the Boston episode, the California murders, and now this event in Orlando, is certainly a credit to the faith we have in Law Enforcement to do the job. Since the Left is unable to screech about Christians rioting in Moslem neighborhoods and burning down mosques, they have decided to blame Christians for the actual genesis of the event. And since the shooter was obviously a Muslim, it then becomes necessary to show how his actions were caused by both Donald Trump and Christian bigots, who gave the killer no other outlet for his anger (caused by bigotry and racism, no doubt). Try and hang with my, folks; I know it can get a bit confusing. Although the New York Times, which hasn't printed a political news piece worth a bucket of shit since Gettysburg, and The Huffington Post gave the appearance of focusing on two separate culprits (Republicans and Christians), make no mistake; Republican and Christian are the same in their entertaining political lexicon. Blaming conservative white America (yes, I went there) for the actions of an ISIS-inspired Muslim Extremist lunatic creates a discussion which fills the room. We were talking about President Obama's determination to never use the word Muslim in the same sentence as terrorist/terrorism, but now the subject has changed. We are now discussing the possibility that the American people might somehow hold some responsibility for the Pulse nightclub murders. The narrative for the Left doesn't change. We are always the guilty party, and must apologize. And as we consider the absurdity of that thought, we aren't really paying attention to the fact that Obama has ordered the enter federal bureaucracy to follow his strict example and not include "Muslim" in any conversation regarding the terrible events of that night.
As a former government servant, I am surprised at how quickly the federal workforce accepts these precedence-setting orders from the Executive Branch. How bad is it? Just follow the breadcrumbs, folks. Over the past eight years, we have suffered through one scandal after another, including the more famous examples at the Justice Department and IRS. When the Obama Administration arrived in DC in 2009, it issued an important set of marching orders: when an opportunity arises to replace a retiring manager from any of the various departments or agencies in the federal government, the replacement will not be the most qualified individual, it will be a political appointee. These political appointees started popping up everywhere, especially on our television screens, testifying before one Congressional Committee after another. To give credit where it is due, these folks did their job (especially that little guy from IRS who looks so much like Gollum from Lord of the Rings, that I start mumbling, "my precious, my precious", whenever I see his smirk). They stone-walled, obfuscated, cleared-their-throat, feigned ignorance, and flat-out lied to protect the Obama Administration. So when the order came down to redact all mentions of "Islamic" from details on terrorism, people understood their job quite clearly. Sadly, I had half-expected, hoped that maybe someone at the FBI or somewhere else at Justice, would stand up and say, "this is ridiculous; we are at war with Muslim extremists." But I don't blame anyone for not putting their job on the line. We all have bills to pay and families to care for.
So why is President Obama so darned set against associating the word "Muslim" with terrorism? The easy answer is to assume that somehow he is actually Muslim himself, and has been hiding the fact for years. President Obama is not a Muslim. Personally, I don't believe he's a Christian, either (just my opinion, folks). I believe that Barack Obama's religion is the kind of Socialism that his father espoused in the late 1960s, Kenya. Obama believes, as his father did, that Europe and the United States in particular, engaged in an undeclared war for many years against anyone who opposed our interests. Much of what Obama believes is in fact, true. For years, in particular the time periods following World War II and the Vietnam Conflict, our Intelligence Agencies and on occasion our Armed Forces, took action that we believed at the time was necessary for our long-term security. We did support and arm the Taliban against Russia in the 1980s, and we did support Saddam Hussein in his late-1980s war with Iran. We have also supported Israel each and every time that nation has been ambushed by multiple enemies all at once. Obama has made it clear that he believes the United States owes apologies all over the Arab world, and also in Africa (Congo, South Africa) and South America (Chile, Paraguay). Whether or not you agree with that view of our overall impact in various regions of the world, will say a lot about how you view this blog post as well.
Hopefully my perspective will help to explain why President Obama is so reticent to connect "terrorism" with Islam. He does not believe that it is helpful nor fair to make the connection, and after decades and decades of unfair treatment from the United States, Islam deserves the benefit of the doubt. I understand the argument, but I certainly do not agree.
Late Monday evening I took the time to read an editorial on FoxNews written by FoxNews contributor Greg Gutfield. I usually appreciate Gutfield's perspective, and his clear, concise and flowing style is welcome. I'm sure I'm not alone when I express an annoyance with self-important commentary that prides itself on how many times the reader has to retreat to a dictionary. Notice to all online contributors: most people don't bother with the dictionary; they just move on to the next article. Gutfield decided to pen this particular commentary after observing the collective response of the media to the events in Orlando, Florida on June 12/13th. So what did happen? How would you answer that simple question? From my optic, on July 12/13, at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando Florida, a fanatical Islamic Terrorist opened fire with various weapons and killed forty-nine innocent people. As Gutfield so deftly points out, the American people seem to be split regarding the cause of the violence in Orlando. According to Gutfield, The New York Times blamed Republicans for the attack, and the Huffington Post blamed Christians (I had trouble excepting this as fact, so I did my homework, and Gutfield is spot-on). In the South and in the Red State heartland, people blamed fanatical Islamic terrorism. I wish I had the tools to take a poll of my readers because I would be fascinated to know where you assign blame.
If we cut through the politically correct crap for a few minutes, this one is truly a no-brainer. The Left/media continues to try and create this evil boogeyman "The Christian Bigot" in America, because the are so desperate for him to exist (and yes, I made it a "he"!). The fact that we have no examples of reprisal attacks following the Boston episode, the California murders, and now this event in Orlando, is certainly a credit to the faith we have in Law Enforcement to do the job. Since the Left is unable to screech about Christians rioting in Moslem neighborhoods and burning down mosques, they have decided to blame Christians for the actual genesis of the event. And since the shooter was obviously a Muslim, it then becomes necessary to show how his actions were caused by both Donald Trump and Christian bigots, who gave the killer no other outlet for his anger (caused by bigotry and racism, no doubt). Try and hang with my, folks; I know it can get a bit confusing. Although the New York Times, which hasn't printed a political news piece worth a bucket of shit since Gettysburg, and The Huffington Post gave the appearance of focusing on two separate culprits (Republicans and Christians), make no mistake; Republican and Christian are the same in their entertaining political lexicon. Blaming conservative white America (yes, I went there) for the actions of an ISIS-inspired Muslim Extremist lunatic creates a discussion which fills the room. We were talking about President Obama's determination to never use the word Muslim in the same sentence as terrorist/terrorism, but now the subject has changed. We are now discussing the possibility that the American people might somehow hold some responsibility for the Pulse nightclub murders. The narrative for the Left doesn't change. We are always the guilty party, and must apologize. And as we consider the absurdity of that thought, we aren't really paying attention to the fact that Obama has ordered the enter federal bureaucracy to follow his strict example and not include "Muslim" in any conversation regarding the terrible events of that night.
As a former government servant, I am surprised at how quickly the federal workforce accepts these precedence-setting orders from the Executive Branch. How bad is it? Just follow the breadcrumbs, folks. Over the past eight years, we have suffered through one scandal after another, including the more famous examples at the Justice Department and IRS. When the Obama Administration arrived in DC in 2009, it issued an important set of marching orders: when an opportunity arises to replace a retiring manager from any of the various departments or agencies in the federal government, the replacement will not be the most qualified individual, it will be a political appointee. These political appointees started popping up everywhere, especially on our television screens, testifying before one Congressional Committee after another. To give credit where it is due, these folks did their job (especially that little guy from IRS who looks so much like Gollum from Lord of the Rings, that I start mumbling, "my precious, my precious", whenever I see his smirk). They stone-walled, obfuscated, cleared-their-throat, feigned ignorance, and flat-out lied to protect the Obama Administration. So when the order came down to redact all mentions of "Islamic" from details on terrorism, people understood their job quite clearly. Sadly, I had half-expected, hoped that maybe someone at the FBI or somewhere else at Justice, would stand up and say, "this is ridiculous; we are at war with Muslim extremists." But I don't blame anyone for not putting their job on the line. We all have bills to pay and families to care for.
So why is President Obama so darned set against associating the word "Muslim" with terrorism? The easy answer is to assume that somehow he is actually Muslim himself, and has been hiding the fact for years. President Obama is not a Muslim. Personally, I don't believe he's a Christian, either (just my opinion, folks). I believe that Barack Obama's religion is the kind of Socialism that his father espoused in the late 1960s, Kenya. Obama believes, as his father did, that Europe and the United States in particular, engaged in an undeclared war for many years against anyone who opposed our interests. Much of what Obama believes is in fact, true. For years, in particular the time periods following World War II and the Vietnam Conflict, our Intelligence Agencies and on occasion our Armed Forces, took action that we believed at the time was necessary for our long-term security. We did support and arm the Taliban against Russia in the 1980s, and we did support Saddam Hussein in his late-1980s war with Iran. We have also supported Israel each and every time that nation has been ambushed by multiple enemies all at once. Obama has made it clear that he believes the United States owes apologies all over the Arab world, and also in Africa (Congo, South Africa) and South America (Chile, Paraguay). Whether or not you agree with that view of our overall impact in various regions of the world, will say a lot about how you view this blog post as well.
Hopefully my perspective will help to explain why President Obama is so reticent to connect "terrorism" with Islam. He does not believe that it is helpful nor fair to make the connection, and after decades and decades of unfair treatment from the United States, Islam deserves the benefit of the doubt. I understand the argument, but I certainly do not agree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)