The Democrats have also been peddling xenophobia when spreading conspiracy tales regarding Chamber of Commerce ads -- enough ink has been spilled on this topic to spare you any more exposure except to make a couple of points. The Democrats have their own history of taking foreign money (Google "Gore, Clinton, donations"), and I do find it rather hypocritical for Obama to be slamming foreigners. Maybe he is just a bitter Democratic clinging to agitprop and resorting to xenophobia to salve his wounded pride. In any case, the Democrats have been touting this malarkey in local races around the country -- to little success other than breeding cynicism.Pretty mild stuff, wouldn't you say? More serious have been ads that outright lie about the oppositions opinions. Case in point:
But the tactic had a broader purpose. The idea has been to use it as a wedge to pry into names of donors from the groups spending money on political ads against Democrats and their policies. Once these names are made public, the real "fun" begins as the Democratic "dogs of war" are unleashed. Target had a target on its back when it donated to a group that, in turn, donated a small amount of their total funds to a candidate who had views that offended gay groups. Then the mobocracy went into action, threatening boycotts, protesting, and the like against Target -- all with the help of plenty of newspaper reporting.
Result? Target has pulled its support with its tail between its legs. All corporations are now on notice to obey or get a newspaper whack.
In one example cited, Washington Democratic Senator Patty Murray ran an ad regarding a tanker competition between foreign-owned Airbus and local employer Boeing, featuring the question "Should Boeing workers have a level playing field?" The ad cut to a clip of Republican challenger Dino Rossi, answering, "No. Not as far as I am concerned."In the past, I have seen ads that mischaracterize the oppositions' positions. These ads walk the tightrope between out and out lying and just misunderstanding. This year, I have seen the ads become unscrupulous, and I have to seriously wonder about the character of the men and women who claim to stand behind the ads.
What was the problem? Rossi was answering a different question, and Murray's machinations led to some creative cutting and pasting that constituted blatant dishonesty.
Today, in the American Thinker, J. R. Dunn has a article entitled The Democrats Will Steal The Election If We Let Them that is a must read. Dunn takes on a little trip through history, highlighting some of the more egregious examples of Democrat election theft. He wonders why Republicans always let this theft slide. I wonder too. While I understand that they do not wish to engage in the same sort of underhanded tactics employed by the Democrats, they should have pursued election theft and voter fraud at every turn, and loudly and publicly prosecuted as many as they could. It would be in their own best interest (one would think) and would be in the interests of their voters.
We have a clear picture of how vicious the Dems can be, how thorough their plans, and how far they will go. Stealing elections is no peccadillo, no charming piece of nostalgia from the days when men wore white gloves and top hats to check the mailbox. The Democratic Party is, in a real sense, built on electoral fraud, and not only in Chicago. The Dems have used the vilest criminal elements to carry out their electoral schemes. They have used fraud to control cities, regions, and entire states. Not even the presidency has been immune. Men have been killed for trying to vote in the United States of America, the same as in El Salvador, Lebanon, or Afghanistan. Those days could return at any time if we let them. (None of this is to suggest that Republicans never steal the vote. But the tenor is different. With Republicans, it's kind of an amateur effort, along the lines of a cottage industry. With Democrats, it's big business, like Big Steel or Google.)The big question is, what to do about it. The Dems are not going to out themselves, and apparently the Repubs aren't going to do anything about it either. So, here is an idea:
Though on second thought, I may be wrong there. Because this year, a third force does exist: the Tea Parties. Protection of the vote is a perfect role for the TPs. Up until now, questions of voting irregularities have been treated as a matter between the candidates, or at best between the parties, with no public participation requested or expected. In truth, intrusion by the public is long overdue. At the least, it would serve to brace up a timid GOP. But there is much more scope for action here, in the traditional form of poll-watchers on one hand and on the other, the intense moral pressure that can exerted by community leaders by their simple presence.As I understand it, anybody can be a poll watcher. Call the Board of Elections in your county, and register with them. Inform the precinct Chief Judge when you arrive. He or she will tell you where to sit. Have a pad, and take notes. Observe the people working the polls, and make notes of any irregularities. Poll watchers are not allowed to interfere, but they can report these irregularities to their local TEA Party groups. Poll watchers are also not allowed to speak to voters.