The Third American Jihad

In a December 22, 2004 column I reminded Republicans that Democrats have been very successful at falsely convincing the American electorate that Republicans were directly responsible for the Great Depression, and that Republicans favor the wealthy and the “corporate interests” over average citizens.  I reminded them that Democrats have falsely convinced African-Americans that Republicans are a party of rich white elitists and that the only way minorities can ever share in the American Dream is by total and absolute fidelity to the Democratic Party.

And I warned that, beginning in November 2000, Democrats have launched yet another malicious propaganda campaign, a “Third American Jihad,” designed to falsely convince the electorate that Republicans stole the 2000 presidential election in Florida and that they won the 2004 presidential election by manipulating the process in the State of Ohio.

I warned that, unless Republicans seize the initiative with a major campaign to reform what is the most fraud-friendly election system in the entire Free World, the Democrat steamroller would roll over them and that they would be known, forevermore, as the party of fraud, manipulation, and disenfranchisement.

Sadly, my warnings and my comprehensive 14-point proposal for top-to-bottom reform have been met with a stony silence.

But what of the Democrats?  What are they up to?  As predicted, four Democrats in the U.S. Senate, Senators Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, and Frank Lautenberg-Torricelli, have introduced an election “reform” bill that would make what is already the most fraud-friendly electoral system on Earth, even more fraud-friendly.  Predictably, the New York Times has referred to the bill as the “gold standard for election reform.”

In addition to requiring paper records of all votes cast, the Democrats would require automatic recounts in 2 percent of all precincts and they would make Election Day a national holiday. 

So far, so good, but then the bill turns ugly.  The Democrats would place restrictions on the political activities of manufacturers of voting machines, creating a new regulated class of citizens with diminished First Amendment rights.  They offer no proof that such political activity has been a detriment to free and honest elections, but by offering the provision they tacitly make that charge. 

The bill would set standards for the minimum number of voting machines per precinct.  How they would establish such a standard with no prior knowledge of the length or complexity of ballots from election to election is unclear.  However, the bill does say to African-Americans, as might be expected, that they are thought to be poor readers and slow learners and that Democrats are looking out for them. 

The bill would place restrictions on the ability of states to disqualify voters and to reject provisional ballots, based on “technicalities.”  We presume that the term “technicalities” would include such questions as whether or not a voter has voted both in person and by absentee ballot, and whether or not a voter knows in which county, city, or precinct he/she resides.

The bill would prohibit “onerous identification requirements,” requiring voters to prove that they are who they say they are, that they are not yet deceased, and that they have not appeared on the silver screen as Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Dick Tracy, or Elvis.

The bill would require states to permit “early voting,” making it easier to “stack” early returns in favor of Democrats and to manufacture favorable early exit polls – a technique used to frightening advantage by the Kerry-Edwards campaign in 2004.

The bill would bar chief state election officials from participating in partisan politics.  Presumably, election officials would henceforth be drawn from a pool of citizens who have no personal interest in or knowledge of politics.  They offer no proof whatsoever that state election officials have acted in any way to subvert the electoral process, but by including the prohibition they tacitly make that charge.

And finally, the Clinton, Boxer, Kerry, and Lautenberg-Torricelli bill would require states to restore the vote to convicted felons.  They claim no special concern for the rights of felons.  What they do tell us, by implication, is something that we already knew – that most convicted felons are, with few exceptions, Democrats.

What does the Democrat bill not do?  It totally ignores the question of whether or not it
is okay to shoot at or assault members of the opposition party, whether it’s okay to vote more than once in any election, and whether it’s okay to vote while being deceased or an illegal alien.  Whatever the sponsors are, they’re not stupid.  They know how Democrats win elections and they certainly don’t want to take all of the fun out of it.