Sunday, December 21, 2008

1 + 1 = 20?

One Plus One Equals 20 Extra Votes For Franken
by (more by this author)

It's bad enough that the Republican Party can't prevent Democrats from voting in its primaries and saddling us with The New York Times' favorite Republican as our presidential nominee. If the Republican Party can't protect an election won by the incumbent U.S. senator in Minnesota, there is no point in donating to the Republican Party.
The day after the November election, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman had won his re-election to the U.S. Senate, beating challenger Al Franken by 725 votes.
Then one heavily Democratic town miraculously discovered 100 missing ballots. And, in another marvel, they were all for Al Franken! It was like a completely evil version of a Christmas miracle.
As strange as it was that all 100 post-election, "discovered" ballots would be for one candidate, it was even stranger that the official time stamp for the miracle ballots printed out by the voting machine on the miracle ballots showed that the votes had been cast on Nov. 2 -- two days before the election.
Democratic election officials in the miracle-ballot county simply announced that their voting machine must have been broken. Don't worry about it -- they were sure those 100 votes for Franken were legit.
Then another 400-odd statistically improbable "corrections" were made in other Democratic strongholds until -- by the end of election week -- Coleman's lead had been whittled down to a mere 215 votes.
Since then, highly irregular counting methods have added to Franken's total bit by bit, to the point that Coleman is now ahead by only 188 votes.
As long as Coleman maintains any lead at all, Republicans don't seem to care that Coleman's advantage is being shrunk by laughable ballot "discoveries" and disreputable standard-switching from precinct to precinct -- depending on which method of counting ballots is most advantageous to Franken.
Consider a few other chilling examples of Democrats thieving their way to victory over the years.
In 1974, Republican Louis Wyman won his race for U.S. Senate in New Hampshire, beating Democrat John Durkin by 355 votes. Durkin demanded a recount -- which went back and forth by a handful of votes until the state's Ballot Law Commission concluded that Wyman had indeed won by (at least) two votes.
Wyman was certified the winner by the New Hampshire secretary of state and was on his way to Washington when ... the overwhelmingly Democratic U.S. Senate refused to seat Wyman.
Despite New Hampshire's certification of Wyman as the winner of the election, this was the post-Watergate Senate, when Democrats could get away with anything -- up to and including a prank known as "President Jimmy Carter."
The U.S. Senate spent months examining disputed ballots from the New Hampshire election. Unable to come up with a method to declare the Democrat the winner that didn't require a guillotine, the Senate forced New Hampshire to hold another election.
It was a breathtaking abuse of power. New Hampshire had certified a winner of its Senate election, but it was a Republican, so the Democratic Senate simply ordered a new election.
Demoralized Republicans stayed away from the race and, this time, the Democrat won the re-vote.
Even more egregious was the Indiana House race in 1984. On election night, the incumbent Democrat Frank McCloskey appeared to have won a narrow victory of 72 votes. But after a correction was made in one county, it turned out his Republican opponent, Richard McIntyre, had won by 34 votes.
McIntyre was certified the winner -- which is when the trouble usually starts for a Republican.
Again, a majority Democrat House refused to seat the certified winner in a close election. I'm sure it was just a coincidence that the winner was a Republican.
Consequently, Indiana performed yet another recount of the entire district, which again showed that Republican McIntyre was the winner -- this time by 418 votes. Now he was really asking for it. The nerve of this guy! Hey, buddy, do you mind? We're trying to throw an election over here!
As The Washington Post reported at the time: There were "no allegations of fraud" in the recount and 90 percent of ballot disqualifications had been agreed to "by election commissions dominated by Democrats."
So naturally the House refused to seat the Republican even though he had received the most votes (hereinafter referred to as "the winner"). The House proceeded to conduct its own recount. (If you haven't detected a pattern by this point, please ask your doctor if Prilosec is right for you.)
This time, instead of ordering the district to hold another election, the Democratic House saved all concerned a lot of time and money by simply declaring Democrat Frank McCloskey the winner by four votes.
The vote-theft most like Minnesota this year was the infamous 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State. The Republican won the race on election night, but ballots favoring the Democrat kept being "discovered" until the Democrat finally eked out a majority. At that point, the recount was immediately halted and the Democrat declared the victor.
You would have to go back to Reconstruction to find an election that was stolen by the Republicans this way, but it's all in a day's work for the Democrats.
That's why they were so testy about the 2000 Florida election. It was the one time in the last century Republicans wouldn't let Democrats steal an election they lost by less than a thousand votes.
No matter how many times Democrats steal elections, Republicans keep thinking the next time will be different. Minnesota is famously clean, isn't it? It must different. It's not different. It's still the Democrats.

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Roundhouse Kick!

Atheists' National Holiday?
by (more by this author)
Posted 12/16/2008 ETUpdated 12/16/2008 ET


Atheists from England to the West Coast of America are stepping up their efforts this year to make a bigger antagonistic splash on the Christmas scene. From London and Washington, D.C., buses to Colorado billboards, skeptics are skewering religions with little respect to the adherents of the religions.



At the forefront is a group's government-sanctioned posting of a sign by a Nativity scene in the Capitol of Washington state (and now also in Wisconsin and Illinois): "At this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.



"I am a patriot, and I believe that atheists are free to believe, speak and post whatever they want. This is America, and that's their First Amendment right. But to do so with harassment and hatred under the guise of free speech is despicable. An anti-religious poster filled with spite is in no way equal to a religious symbol, such as a Nativity scene. Where are the political correctness police when religious followers are the victims?



If such words were written against any social minority group, protests would be ubiquitous. But anti-religious bigotry is in vogue these days. Still, there is absolutely no justification for these atheists' written revile. And if they want to keep using hate-filled language against theists -- particularly Christians -- then they shouldn't be surprised when they meet up with a yuletide (written) roundhouse kick.



Anyone can spew disdain for religion, but is that what America's Founders created our rights for? Just because they post such verbal vomit, does that demonstrate intellectual superiority or the type of moral decency our Founders hoped we would perpetuate?What profit would there be if I posted a taunt that atheists had no vital part in the founding of our country?



As Benjamin Franklin noted in his 1787 pamphlet for those in Europe thinking of relocating to America: "To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there."What profit would there be if I posted a claim that atheists are un-American because they try to suppress theists' freedom of religion by the false notion of separation of church and state?



What profit would there be if I posted the accusation that atheists are imprudent because they exhaust too much time trying to convince everyone else of the absence of a being who doesn't exist?What profit would there be if I posted a retort that atheists are igmos because they try to replace Christmas with winter solstice celebrations, which are ancient pagan festivals entrenched in polytheistic religions?



What profit would there be if I posted that atheism hides behind a false pretense that it is scientific when eminent scientist Paul Davies -- the renowned British-born physicist, agnostic and professor of cosmology, quantum field theory and astrobiology -- once spoke against the certainty of atheism to Time magazine (in the column "Science, God, and Man"): "Agnosticism -- reserving judgment about divine purpose -- remains as defensible as ever, but atheism -- the confident denial of divine purpose -- becomes trickier. If you admit that we can't peer behind a curtain, how can you be sure there's nothing there?"



What profit would there be if I posted that atheists are totally blind to the pristine beauty and ordered complexity of creation, so they cannot see the hand of a Creator? As the Bible pointed out 2,000 years ago, "For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."



What profit would there be if I posted the fact that atheists denigrate every religion and prayer that ever has been offered? To say God doesn't exist is to say every religious leader in every age was delusional at best. And it also is to say that not one prayer on any continent in any era of human history has been answered. That premise alone rules atheism preposterous and foolish.Finally, what profit would there be if I posted that I agree with my friend Mike Huckabee, who said on his book tour via Fox News that atheists shouldn't be fighting for a holiday in December when they already have a holiday: April Fools' Day (a holiday also grounded in sacred Scripture, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no god'")?We all know I would be labeled as an extremist, irrational and a bigot if I posted any of the preceding ideas. Yet atheists do and get away with First Amendment murder.



I'd like to remind our nation that it was only a short time ago when Ronald Reagan freely spoke for the majority by explicitly and passionately conveying belief in Jesus Christ during his presidential Christmas addresses. Compare the message in his Dec. 23, 1981, speech with that of the present day, when the very term "Christmas" is being erased from every corner of culture.As long as different displays line the corridors of Washington state's Capitol like Christmas potpourri, let me posit this last idea as a final pre-Christmas posting. At the base of the bust of George Washington (which stands between the atheists' winter solstice sign and the Nativity scene in the Washington state Capitol), I suggest the posting of one more sign, which would contain the wisdom from George Washington's farewell address: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."(Note: In the spirit of Christmas, Chuck is giving away a free chapter of his current New York Times best-seller, "Black Belt Patriotism." To obtain yours, go to www.ChuckNorrisNewBook.com.)

Friday, December 5, 2008

Back to Basics

I for one have not hidden from the fact that I am scared to death of what a democrat controlled federal government is going to do to this country. But I have to say I do not find myself upset that John McCain is not President. Why is it that I feel this way?

Well, for starters, John McCain did not and does not represent the conservative values I hold dear. He has time and time again 'crossed party lines' to bring forth legislation that no true conservative should be found even near. But when pressed with the choice we had, I as almost 57 million other Americans did, held my nose and voted for him. But many did not. What was it about Obama that so many conservatives, from both sides, found compelling?

If you just listen to what he was saying heading down the home stretch, Obama was taking pages out of Ronald Wilson Reagan's book. He was preaching a conservative agenda. Now I do not hold my breath that Senator Obama(he is not President yet)is going to in any way act conservatively, but that is what pushed him over the edge. That and the fact that many would rather a democrat than a RINO(Republican in name only) as McCain has seemed to many of us.

After the Election the exit polls showed that this country is still very much a center right country. Even in Extremely liberal country, California, the Marriage amendment to the states constitution passed. I think what conservatives need to do now is overhaul the party. I felt for a time that I needed to find a new party that would represent me better than the republicans. Republicans have squandered and political clout they may have had with increased government under their watch and a departure from Reagan's conservative values. As Reagan himself said, The answer is not to create a new party, but to take back the republican party! We need to put in office republicans who will fight for our values.

These are the five basic principles we conservatives want represented:

1. Limited Government
One of the biggest problems today is that the Federal Government has its hand in everything we do. This is not what our founders had in mind. In fact, with every turn that the Govt. gets involved in our personal lives we end up with problems. The govt. by its very nature cannot manage your money better than you can. We will visit each of these principles more in depth in the future.

2. Personal responsibility
What happened to this country? We were(and are) the shining city on the hill. Everyone looked to our shores and the freedoms(less govt and free markets etc.) as a place to work hard and succeed. It was(and is) the American Dream. If you want to take the risk you get the reward. If you choose not to work hard and be a bum, then you face the consequences of those choices. What ever happened to personal accountability? The very fact that there are people who live off of the hard work of others is insane. The communist Manifesto stated from each according to their works from each according to their needs. We move closer to this every day.

3. The Rule of Law
We are a Nation of Laws. We believe in being subject to these laws. If we think a law is unjust we have a means to remove these laws. Why is it that there are those within our country and in our very govt. who feel they can do as they wish and to heck with the law. Too often those in power disregard the laws they do not agree with. Heck, they disregard the very constitution our country is founded upon!

4. Free Markets
The most basic principle of the strong country that we became was because of our Founders belief in a free market system. When Gov't gets involved with business, business suffers. The less Gov't gets involved, ie regulation and taxation, the more business flourishes. Taxes are a necessary evil in order to sustain our defense and a limited govt. But the lower those taxes on the people and the corporations, the more revenue Gov't receives. This is a fact, proven during Dwight D. Eisenhower's presidency as well as during Ronald Wilson Reagan's.

5. A Strong National Defense
Now, I agree that the constitution does not provide for a standing army. But it did provide for a navy in order to protect the nation from foreign invaders. The idea behind not providing for a standing army was that our founders did not want war. They believed that a standing army would look for a reason to go to war. Today's world is drastically different in that the threats facing this country are numerous. The foes bent on our destruction are also numerous. With a strong military we can respond to threats but we can also prevent countless others just by being such a formidable military might. I do not agree with all the foreign posts we are presently in(why do we still need 35,000 troops in South Korea?) but I do support taking the fight to the enemy and not just sit back waiting for them.

We as conservatives have an opportunity to redefine the republican party and appeal to the whole of the country who are yearning for a party to really identify with their conservative values. Can the republicans become that party? I believe that they can. If we all stand up for our principles and demand that our politicians do the same.

And when they don't we need to replace them!

Sons & Daughters of Liberty

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine

Liberty link

Please visit The Liberty Sphere or any of the links to the right for updated posts on gun control and politics we should be aware of.

And please join the Sons and Daughters of Liberty list by following this blog. Click on the link at the top of this page to follow this blog.