The issue is larger than the vote/election fraud that’s occuring in Minnesota — Al Franken declared “the winner” after losing by earlier counts for the Senate seat and Norm Coleman losing after first winning — though Minnesota is a loud example of this wretched Leftwing poltiical coup currently underway nationwide.
Democrats have organized individual Secretary of State “associated” or sympathetic state offices to their respective Democrat candidates, thus bringing respective state vote count and elections more under the control of a predestermined, Democrat “win” by jury-rigging how ballots are handled.
As to Minnesota’s Liberal-gluttonous election, Minnesota, Democrat Al Franken can’t be seated in the Senate until the ensuing lawsuit brought by Republican Norm Coleman is resolved, but, at last announcement, the Minnesota Secretary of State, sympathetic to Democrat Franken, eeked out a declaration that Franken was “the winner.”
But read the reality as to how that Franken “win” was brought into being, prearranged and predetermined not by Minnesota voters voting but by Democrats handling-the-votes-to-a-desired-result.
From RED COUNTY, “Liberals Aim to Control State Secreatary of State Offices“:
…it is somewhat disturbing to learn from CNS News that there is a liberal 527 group called the Secretary of State Project which is targeting state Secretary of State offices for Democrat takeover.
Liberals are still fuming even eight years later that they were not allowed to steal the 2000 election with their “dimpled chad” interpretations of votes for Al Gore, and we largely have Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris and the U.S. Supreme Court to thank for finally ending their outrageous efforts to manufacture an Al Gore victory.
But what has happened in the 2008 election in Minnesota? The senate race between incumbent Republican Senator Norm Coleman and Democrat comedian Al Franken finished too close to call and recount territory.
Again, as long as election laws are followed and enforced uniformly, there is little to worry about. Unfortunately, in the liberal enclave that is Minnesota, as the Wall Street Journal points out, we have seen far too much funny business in this recount.
Coleman came out of the election with a 215 vote lead, and in most cases a recount will increase the margin of the leading candidate; no guarantees, but usually. But thanks to several interesting developments, that lead managed to switch, in about the same numbers, to Franken.
A lot of ballot changes ended up going Franken’s way, some would say an inordinate number. Hmmm.
Also, if a ballot becomes damaged during counting, a duplicate is required to be made and marked “Duplicate.” Only it looks like many of these weren’t marked “Duplicate,” and now more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote. Interestingly, these irregularities run in Franken’s favor.
Another precinct “lost” 133 votes. In other words, a hand recount found 133 fewer votes than were recorded on election night. There is no proof that any votes were actually lost; evidence seems to indicate that officials may have run some of the ballots through twice accidentally on election night. But rather than go with the more accurate hand recount number, officials are going with the election night count (which can’t account for 133 ballots)…giving Franken an extra 46 votes.
But a precinct in a different county went a different way. They, too, had a disparity between election night totals and a hand recount, this time resulting in 177 ballots that weren’t recorded on election night. But this time, the board went with the new total…giving Franken an extra 37 votes.
Absentee ballots are being recounted, but not all of them are getting counted. Counties that went heavily Franken have sent in their absentee ballots to be recorded…but it seems Coleman-dominated counties are dragging their feet. Chalk up another 176 votes for Franken.
Then there was the interesting manner in which some of the votes were “interpreted.” It seems some voters filled in the oval on the ballot, only to put an X through it sometimes. In many cases, iif the X was through a Coleman-filled oval, the X meant “the voter changed their mind and didn’t want to vote for Coleman;” if the X was through a filled-in Franken oval, it meant “the voter wanted to emphasize their desire to vote for Franken by filling in the oval and marking it with an X.”
It almost seemed that in liberal-controlled Minnesota, the standard operating procedure for determining which vote counts to accept and which ones to reject hinged on one question: does it benefit Franken?
All election officials have a responsibility to follow the law and ensure it is applied consistently. But even if they fail in this duty, there are other officials who are charged with “being the grownup” and ensuring others do their job. That official is primarily the Secretary of State.
As Conservatives among the Republican Party, most of us would not opt to gain an elected office by defying standards of decency or want any political office if violating ethics and election procedures was required. But Democrats don’t care about these things — I realize that’s a grand statement and may appear excessive, but, the cumulative history of experiences nationwide in elections has more than proven that to be the case: Democrats will “win” regardless of what is violated and defied in doing so.
So these are not election wins but nationwide losses. Our nation suffers a continued blow year by year from a Leftwing party, the Democrats, whose mantra continues to be the moldy, infectious Marxist ploy of “the ends justify the means,” and that means, “grab political authority by any means possible.”
The Republican Party and all Republicans must stop expecting Democrats to play fair because the Left will never do so. It’s not in their character, it’s not what their politics are about nor what their goals are. Fairness, openness in a shared procedure observable under the law or under standards of respectable ethics, these are not the characteristics of today’s Leftwing and Democratic Party, and, the Republican Party must cease anticipating an environment in our nation that observes the rules because we as a nation are being assaulted by a Leftwing politic that doesn’t care about rules any more than it cares about the Constitution, laws, organized standards, decency, honesty, any of that.
We Republicans are following an ethic that the Left isn’t — while the Left, the Democrats, continue to grow more control-gluttonous and power-driven. Which is the re-emergence in our world of “Liberal fascism”: there are no standards of decency but only a standard of “order” and how it’s defined and understood is contrary to how an ethical individual defines the concept; it is, rather, a sense of “order” or prearrangement presupposed by “government authority” or use of growing government control by a Leftwing, ordering all else subjugated to that. And it starts with the ballots.
Republicans must stop expecting any exchange of ideas or level playing field because the Left today is not playing by any rules that the rest of us understand to be decent or observable.
Reading: CNS News, “Liberal Project Aims to Impact Election Oversight by Electing Secretaries of State”
And I quote, from the (Democrats’) “Secretary of State Project” [or, “SoS”] website:
“…“The Secretary of State Project was created by concerned citizens to provide an easy-to-use, low-cost vehicle for online donations to key Secretary of State races,” the group’s Web site says. Elsewhere, the site states: “A modest political investment in electing clean candidates to critical Secretary of State offices is an efficient way to protect the election. SoS Project donors helped elect reform candidates to the chief elections officer position in 5 key presidential battleground states.”
Pay close attention to their use of the word, “clean” — as in, “clean candidates.”
This distinction, the use of this specific word, “clean,” in the context of their desired, Democrat candidates nationwide, state-by-state, is hardly happenstance: it’s a distinction drawing between their intentional process of charade (or, “theatre”) by way of using political office to deceive individual voters, or, more specifically, to commit election fraud by way of useful indivduals who won’t call into question the absent ethics of the Left. In other words, “clean candidates” who are useful actors or useful performers in a Leftwing parade.
Not “intelligent candidates,” not “experienced, moral candidates,” not “capable leaders” as candidates, but “clean candidates,” people who don’t have a record or if they do, they have a record (a past, in other words, the reality of who a person is) that is concealed or concealable. Like, for example, Barack Hussein Obama (or, “Barry Soetoro” as his name is given in earlier statements for and about him).
In other words, individuals who lie well and look nice and read with talent from a teleprompter.