When I heard that the Philadelphia Inquirer was reporting that 59 voting districts reported not a single vote for Romney I was immediately suspicious. Not-one-vote. Really? Is that even possible? Well, of course it is possible, the the probability is vanishingly small. Then the Cleveland Plain Dealer also reported 9 such precincts which it found incredible. Then there is this piece of news by Bob Unruh at WND where a poll watcher claims to have been an eye witness to voting machines switching votes from Romney to Obama. Duke writes:
And vote fraud is Democrat domain. Liberals are the situational-values set, people who for years insisted that right and wrong is relative and that if it feels good, do it. And what feels good to them at election time is stealing votes to win - and they do it. They relish it, in fact. Like the liberal who addressed Bill Clinton's it-depends-on-what-is-is infidelity and adamantly told me, "He did the right thing," leftists love the con. To pull a fast one like private eye Jim Rockford, fool everyone, and get away with it is like winning the Nobel Prize in Prevarication in their world. Thus, it's assured that there's no small number of liberals who are currently brimming with pride at having negated the votes of countless knuckle-dragging conservatives.Mrs. PolyKahr insists both sides do it, but aside from the one case where a Republican was convicted of voter fraud in Eastern Kentucky, I have never heard of that particular form of criminality. Republicans may have different forms, but Duke is correct that voter fraud is a uniquely Democrat crime. Look at it like this, if Republicans were better at it, Republicans would have won more elections.
The question is, will it be actively investigated this time, or will the Left sweep in under the rug as usual. Where there are Republican AGs, will they finally go after fraudsters?
Look, the legitimacy of our form of government rests on the consent of the governed. Our form of government is a Constitutional Republic, which means that some things are simply not up for elections, no matter that a temporary majority votes for them. But, of the things that are up for grabs, the candidate who wins can impose his ideas. But, if we can not trust the election process to deliver a qualified candidate with a majority of the backing of his or her constituents, what then? If a candidate for office loses the actual vote, but fraudulently obtains a majority of apparent votes, is that candidate legitimate? If enough of the legislature seems to have such issues, can the laws they vote on be said to be legitimate? Do We the People need to obey such laws? What happens when 50% of the people say "yes" and 50% of the people say "No"? The ensuing chaos should give everybody in government pause. Because that is where this is heading unless action is taken to punish the fraudsters, and put in place procedures that bring it down to a dull roar. You know, when the MSM, the propaganda arm of the Democrat party, begins to notice, then it must be pretty widespread.
Update: Anthony Martin, whom you may know as the Welshman, author of the Liberty Sphere, has a piece up on the subject entitled Growing Protest of Obama Reelection Reaching Fever Pitch