--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What if the pre-election
polls were right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
In the midst of the latest court and public relations assault on "We, the People" in this historically close presidential election, the mainline media has focused on the few hundred votes separating Al Gore from the White House. In doing so, they've missed the real story.
As early as election evening, the media's talking heads were grooming themselves for the weekend, wondering out loud how the pollsters could have got things so wrong. After all, these public opinion outfits are sophisticated operations, employing any number of experts, whose reputations are on the line. They run specialized tests to determine the accuracy of their results, and publish their findings nationally. "How could they have been so wrong?" was the question of the moment.
But what if they weren't wrong?
Item: WND reports that legal aliens (nonresidents) living in California and Washington received letters and voting documents urging them to vote -- mailed by the Democratic Party and signed by President Bill Clinton ( "Voter fraud, again!" by Joseph Farah, Nov. 6).
Item: WND reports that tens of thousands of servicemen and women did not receive their ballot in time to vote ( "Will Congress probe military-ballot snafu?" by Jon Dougherty, Nov. 10).
Item: The Pensacola News Journal reports an absentee ballot diversion scheme in Florida, uncovered by the son of a federal judge. Two ballots -- thought to have been lost -- turned up to be counted, but the signatures were forged ("Pensacola ballot prompts fraud investigation: Elections supervisor discovers forged ballot," by Scott Streater, Nov. 9).
Item: Edward Nelson, president of U.S. Border Control, suggests that illegal immigrants and other non-qualified voters will elect the next U.S. President. "We believe that the national average for non-citizen voting is about 2-4 percent with it spiking up to 10-15 percent in places like Dade County, Florida, and in major cities that have large current immigrant populations," said Mr. Nelson (PRNewswire, "Non-citizens to Choose Next President Says U.S. Border Control," Nov. 9).
Item: The Honolulu Advertiser reports that a recent check of voter registrations found "550 Hawaii residents who are not U.S. citizens have registered to vote" ("State election officials said yesterday that they will meet with O'ahu and neighbor island clerks to determine ways to head off illegally registered voters at the polls this year," by Scott Ishikawa and Kevin Dayton, Sept. 7).
All of this is in addition to the Clinton administration's documented immigrant fast-track citizenship programs, which have granted citizenship to known criminals, freeing them in their new homeland to prey on innocent Americans who "worked hard and played by the rules." Other applicants who had no business even visiting this country, let alone living here, were rushed through the citizenship maze based on the theory they would, perhaps out of gratitude, vote for the Democratic Party. If we were discussing stock certificates, the masterminds of this fraudulent scheme would be in jail for diluting the holdings of existing shareholders. Is our nation at least as valuable as a publicly traded company? If so, where are the federal officials whose sworn duty is to protect us from this abuse?
The Democratic Party revealed its hand when it crafted the "motor-voter" bill, which made registration so easy that we stopped asking for proof of citizenship. Apparently, we didn't want to hurt the feelings of non-residents who longed to participate in American democracy -- perhaps by voting themselves increasing benefits and obtaining representation from those intent on erasing our nation's history and values -- because that's what stood in the way of their hold on power. Republicans failed to recognize that the motor-voter law was designed to be -- as this election demonstrates -- the last nail in their party's coffin.
And has the American media stood up to champion the integrity of the voting process? One can't help but question whether their original "call" of Florida for Al Gore was perhaps calculated to depress Republican turnout in the Panhandle's Central time zone -- as well as the remainder of the West. This is not the first time their "news reporting" has looked more like election manipulation than viewer information. Despite numerous requests from state officials, they have adamantly refused to put the integrity of America's vote before their own self-interest. Since they use the public airwaves without compensation, maybe a little look into their internal thinking is in order? The Federal Communications Commission could post their internal memorandums and e-mails on its website. Or should we just have NSA release their Echelon intercepts?
At this point, a word needs to be said about the media credibility of William Daley, whose father built one of the most corrupt political machines ever to govern big-city America. How is it that media-types can interview Mr. Daley with a straight face while he pontificates on "voting irregularities" in Florida? "Sir -- have you no shame?" Lifetime political junkies dream of being buried in Chicago, "because there, even the dead can vote." What kind of voting irregularities do you suppose young William learned around the family dinner table from his notorious father? And why would Al Gore burden his campaign with such baggage, if the process is so important to him? Did Mr. Gore, like his boss Bill Clinton, want to be remembered for "the most ethical administration in history"?
Yes, the real story behind Florida's razor-thin vote counts is that Americans have been systematically defrauded of their vote. The impact of honest citizens has been diluted to the point of unconscionably weak orange juice by politicians squeezing every last drop of power and perks out of the system they have chosen to betray, and a media-machine that worships the monolithic diversity of race -- while it shuns diversity of thought in its opinion-laden reportage.
Are the Republicans blameless in all this? Not likely. But the available evidence suggests that Republicans have not attacked the process itself in their quest for power, a strategy Democrats seem to have embraced. I know there are many honorable Democrats who hate what their party has become, and voted for Al Gore in good faith. Voter fraud is not your fault. Yet, I would say to you that the long-term health of our political system -- and even freedom in the world today -- requires your involvement in fixing the process. Without competing visions of our future, we will stagnate. Eternal vigilance is still the price of freedom. But the process requires that once the vision is cast -- the people must be allowed to decide the outcome -- and that outcome must be beyond suspicion. The bottom line is, if "We, the People" want the process to work, then "We, the People" had better inspect the damage uncovered by this election and begin the needed repairs.
We could start by canceling every voter registration in America, then demanding responsible proof of citizenship from those re-registering. And we need to get serious about penalizing those who abuse and subvert the system -- voters and officials alike. Let's implement a decent audit-trail and provide accountability in the ballots we give out -- and get back in return. Absentee ballots, while convenient for busy Americans, are also convenient places for fraud to enter the system. Unless real hardship exists, we should require voters to mark their ballot at the polling place.
Each of us finds time for what is important in our lives. The choices we make determine who and what we become. The choices we make as voters determine who and what our nation will become. The pre-election polling results provide an important check on the health of the very foundation of our governing process, and our ability to remain a free people. When the actual and the projected numbers are this far apart, the body politic is running a fever. Our natural defense mechanism is trying to tell us something. "We, the People" had better investigate the health of the body politic and take corrective action now -- or the patient, and much of the world's hope with it -- will die.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craige McMillan is a commentator for WorldNetDaily. He is the founder of CC&M, an exciting new initiative to reshape the way America looks at and interacts with people of faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report suggests advance
planning to steal election
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
When I read a story on Wednesday that said the Democratic National Committee hired a telemarketing firm an hour before the polls closed Nov. 7 in Florida to make calls to Palm Beach County voters using a script suggesting that the now infamous butterfly ballots were "confusing," I smelled a big, fat Clinton-Gore rat.
According to the report, a Texas-based telemarketing firm called Telequest (ironic that it is based in Gov. Bush's home state, eh?) was hired by the DNC to make 5,000 calls in less than 45 minutes using this script:
"Some voters have encountered a problem today with punch card ballots in Palm Beach County. These voters have said that they believe that they accidentally punched the wrong hole for the incorrect candidate.
"If you have already voted and think you may have punched the wrong hole for the incorrect candidate, you should return to the polls and request that the election officials write down your name so that this problem can be fixed."
The Democrats say the effort was legitimate. I say if you believe that, you're probably still waiting for your first quarter from the tooth fairy.
"Once we were informed by local news accounts of the magnitude of the problem with confusion about the ballot, we shifted our scripts to make sure that people who were voting were aware of the questions and confusion around the ballot," DNC spokeschick Jenny Backus told reporters.
As I recall, all of the "controversy" over "confusing ballots" came on Wednesday -- the day after the election and just as Florida was ordering a mandatory recount.
"The maneuver indicates that long before Americans awoke to the reality of the Florida ballot dispute, Democrats were already mobilizing voters there," The Associated Press said.
Sure it does. That's the point; the DNC had this planned.
"Within hours of the phone campaign, hundreds of Democratic voters had called election officials in Palm Beach to complain they may have been confused by the ballot and voted for the wrong candidate," according to the report.
Nothing like being "persuaded" into confusion -- especially if your candidate is behind.
"The calls," according to AP, "indicate that Democrats were concerned about Palm Beach problems even before they knew Florida's vote would end in a razor-thin margin, said American University political science professor Candice Nelson."
I would agree. Again, that's the point.
"To the extent there have been accusations that Democrats didn't cry foul until they realized Wednesday that Bush may have won, this cuts the other way," Nelson said.
Yeah, it certainly does "appear" that way, doesn't it? As in, it was probably supposed to "appear" that way. I smell "plausible deniability."
The problem is, this trash doesn't wash.
If you pay much heed to the flavor of the AP report, it makes it sound as though -- suddenly -- Democrats and Palm Beach election officials were inundated with billions of voters calling to complain about "confusing" Florida ballots on the spur of the moment. As we've learned, voters were prompted to call by the DNC.
Political campaigns indeed do encounter sudden, spur-of-the-moment "problems" that have to be handled quickly, I agree. But something this complex doesn't work that way. Something this easy to get off the ground was planned well in advance -- and probably not just in Florida but in other key states Gore had a chance of losing at the last moment.
In Florida, my personal guess is that Democrats were tipped off early that they were losing, either by polling station workers or local press buddies or both. When this information was received, "Plan B" was activated. The plan was, as it seems to me, to convince Gore supporters who can manage 12 full Bingo cards that they can't manage to properly read and cast a vote on a single ballot.
I don't quite know how the networks factor into this -- but by proclaiming a Gore victory too early there is no question the declaration suppressed votes for Bush elsewhere in the state. That too, is something to consider.
As for the crux of this report, it suggests:
The Democrats put this pre-ordained plan into action because they knew early on they were losing a key state;
TeleQuest was pre-ordained as the telemarketer of choice (you don't think the DNC found them in the phone book on election night, do you?);
The script TeleQuest was using was already written -- it had to be, because if the firm made 5,000 calls in the 45 minutes before Florida polls closed, when would there have been time to write the script?
Also an oddity -- the DNC intimated that state party officials were receiving lots of phone calls complaining about the "confusion" of the ballot throughout the day. Yet they waited until less than an hour before the polls closed to begin making these phone calls. Not likely; if there was true ballot confusion, a political party would want its supporters to know early and often that they may run into a problem, lest they legitimately cast a vote for the wrong man.
As a coup de grace, TeleQuest also said they provided the names of Palm Beach county residents who said they may have voted "improperly" (remember, this is after being prompted into such a response by the script employed) to the DNC, obviously so Democratic officials could then use those names in anticipated litigation.
It is just amazing to me that the establishment press accepts this tripe without question. A first-year political science major could figure this one out.
In any other election, one could dismiss this whole ordeal as just a cheap political tactic. But in this election, such a tactic could well decide the fate and future of the world's richest, most powerful nation. That has implications beyond our borders so, in essence, our presidential decision is bigger than all of us.
None of that seems to matter much to Gore and the Democrats. To them power is more important and the path to achieving power justifies the means, no matter how illegal, improper or immoral.
Gore no longer deserves the White House or the respect of the American people. Honesty and integrity are as unfamiliar to him and the DNC as "controlling legal authority."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon E. Dougherty is a staff writer for WorldNetDaily.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Which way to doom?'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Casey Brooks
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
I keep thinking about this riddle from years ago, something about traveling through a land where half the people always tell the truth and the other half always lies. You come to a fork in the road, and you know that one path will lead you to paradise and the other will lead you to doom. So you have to ask the locals for advice, only you can't tell from looking at them who lies and who doesn't, but you do know the liars will send you on the path to doom. Your challenge is to figure out the one question you can ask that would enable you to determine the path to paradise, even if the person you are asking is a liar.
I feel like I've stumbled into that land. I'm watching with incredulity as news programs give 24-hour feedback of this post-election disorder, from which I'm suffering some distress. I am reacting with a mixture of fascination and disgust as this presidential volley lobs back and forth between state and county, electoral procedure and judicial fiat, law and lawlessness. I'm waiting to see which path we'll be traveling.
The wake of this election has left a continental rift in this country that's broader than some oceans. There are accusations flying over the validity of the votes, the balance of ballots, the intent of "chads." There are questions about the integrity of the Electoral College, the significance of popular vote, and how to interpret the "will of the people." There currently are Senators-in-waiting whose only qualifications appear to be corruption or demise. We have questionable figures making calls for amendments to our Constitution. And in the center of this maelstrom we have Al Gore, not conceding in defeat, not even breaking a sweat over the prospect of it, because, as we all know, there is "no legal controlling authority."
I am so tired of this mockery, of this creating of paper airplanes out of the U.S. Constitution, of this travesty committed upon this great country by this small cartel of political militants. If they had one shred of decency, if they had any sense of honor, if they held an inkling of respect for our laws, our country, our heritage, then the Democratic camp would have gracefully bowed-out and conceded the race for another time, another place. They would have shown a statesman's regard for the American people instead of a desperate scramble to salvage political control.
But they don't and they won't and they will not.
Instead, they have demanded a recount of the recount and have selectively centered their focus on sympathetic counties. While their advocates hand count ballots in South Florida in a covert effort to tilt the results in their favor, their political minions are busy casting about suspicion and blame, working to taint the opposition with the same stains they wear, as though everyone drinks from the same cup.
As if the voters having spoken not once, but twice, is not enough, they want them to speak as many times as it takes to get the votes, and then they want them to shut-up.
Not that they've ever really been interested in the voters, anyway. Remember? These Democrats don't trust the people, especially now, when so many obviously couldn't even vote right. (I knew those people didn't have sense, now I'm certain of it!) But the average voter shouldn't be offended. After all, these guys don't even trust judges. (Their admittance, in response to a question about whether they would continue to pursue this election in higher courts if the Florida Supreme Court ruled against them. They said they would.)
Nothing is sacred with these people. They think nothing of instituting mass campaigns to urge voters to remember the confusion they had over the ballot. They have no hesitation about slandering reputable individuals by accusing them of partisanship and insinuating that all pots are inherently black. They have no remorse about exploiting the vulnerable, terrorizing the fearful, inciting hatred among the people.
And this is the caliber of the people who want to run this country? These are the folks that half of the voters in this election voted for? There are handguns with more weight and less potential for harm.
The Gore camp is so set on the White House that they have committed themselves to any means possible to achieve it. There is no measure beyond their mores that they won't attempt, undertake or employ to secure a victory, and in light of their behavior they don't seem to have any mores. Where nothing is sacred, nothing is lost.
And that is what is so alarming about this whole fiasco.
If Gore were to manage to garner the presidency, this would not be about Democrats taking the White House. It would be about men without foundation administering this country.
It would be like standing in a land half populated with liars and wondering which way to paradise. The question you would want to ask then would not be "Which way to paradise, sir?" but rather, "Which way to doom?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Brooks is a wife, a mother of three and a columnist for the Northwest Florida Daily News. She has lived on four continents and views the world as a little larger than a village.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTION 2000, DAY 10
Bush retains
pro-Gore firm
Choice of Miami practice strikes some
as odd given its strong Democratic ties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Paul Sperry
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON -- As the fight over Florida's election results moves into the courts, the lawyers hired by the Bush and Gore teams are taking center stage. Of particular note is trial lawyer Barry S. Richard.
Richard is a partner with Miami-based Greenberg Traurig, which has strong Democratic Party ties and donates mostly to Democratic candidates.
The law firm employs Marvin S. Rosen, the former Democratic National Committee finance chair who worked closely with Vice President Al Gore in raising funds for the 1996 campaign. Another partner is former Democratic Rep. Jim Bacchus.
Recent Greenberg Traurig alumni include Sen. Ted Kennedy's wife and the late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown's son.
Richard, a Democrat himself, works out of Greenberg Traurig's Tallahassee, Fla., office where he's litigated many state, as well as federal, cases. He seems the ideal choice to represent Gore's team in the state's capital.
Only he's not representing Gore. He's representing George W. Bush -- as his lead Florida attorney.
The choice has some conservative legal analysts here scratching their heads. They question how wise it is for a Republican presidential candidate to hire a Democratic lawyer from a Democratic firm, especially when the political stakes are so high.
Richard will bring dozens of Greenberg Traurig associates and paralegals into the case, increasing the risk of leaks back to the Gore legal team, some speculate.
"It raises issues as to whether information can be kept confidential," said Judicial Watch general counsel Larry Klayman.
Landmark Legal Foundation president Mark Levin agrees there are risks, but points out that the American Bar Association sets rules against leaking information in such politically sensitive cases.
"If anybody violates the privilege and confidentiality requirements, they could face disbarment and the loss of their livelihood," Levin said. "Anybody who shares confidential and privileged information in a way that harms their client is playing a very, very risky game -- if they're caught."
Levin says Bush likely was limited in his choices, since there aren't many Republican trial lawyers.
"Barry Richard, I know by reputation, is one of the finest trial lawyers in the country," Levin said. "Now, I suspect most of these top-flight trial lawyers are Democrats, so it's kind of hard not to stumble across their law firms."
But it remains to be seen where Richard's loyalties lie in this politically charged case, Levin says.
"The proof is in the pudding for me," he said. "If he wins a few of these legal skirmishes, then I think Bush picked good counsel. If he doesn't, then I'll have some questions."
Klayman is more skeptical.
"I question the wisdom of retaining Greenberg Traurig, given the fact they employ Rosen and employed Victoria Kennedy and Michael Brown, who ended up at Patton Boggs, which is another Democratic firm working for the Bush campaign," Klayman said.
Benjamin Ginsberg, a member of Washington-based Patton Boggs, is acting as general counsel to the Bush campaign.
Calls to the Bush campaign headquarters in Austin, Texas, were not returned by deadline.
Rosen, one of Greenberg Traurig's most prominent members, was instrumental in helping reelect Gore and President Clinton in the last campaign. But his fund-raising tactics got him in hot water.
Rosen and his firm have been tied to illegal foreign donations from Miami Beach developer Thomas Kramer, a German citizen, and Mark Jimenez, a citizen of the Philippines.
In fact, Greenberg Traurig in 1998 was fined $77,000 for soliciting an illegal donation from Kramer. The firm's fine ranks in the top 20 levied by the Federal Election Commission.
As DNC finance chairman, Rosen supervised the activities of convicted fund-raiser John Huang, then DNC vice chairman of finance. After the '96 election, the DNC had to return about half of the more than $3 million raised by Huang, since it came from illegal foreign sources.
Former Justice Department special prosecutor Charles LaBella targeted Rosen during his investigation into 1996 fund-raising abuses by the DNC and Clinton-Gore campaign.
On page 61 of his July 1998 interim report, LaBella said: "There are several incidents involving John Huang, Marvin Rosen, David Mercer and the DNC which are troubling.
"These incidents suggest at some level, certain DNC fund-raisers were actively engaged in conduct which had the effect of concealing questionable fund-raising conduct from the FEC and the public," he added. "The particulars are detailed below:"
But Attorney General Janet Reno redacted the details about Rosen and the others. The following two-and-half pages of LaBella's report are blank.
Rosen also was one of the participants in a controversial White House meeting held on Nov. 21, 1995, in which DNC and Gore staffers discussed diverting part of donations into Clinton-Gore hard-money accounts, which are subject to federal election law. Gore also was there.
But he's told prosecutors under oath that he didn't participate in the hard-money discussions because he was in the bathroom at the time. Too much iced-tea, he says.
The meeting is critical because Gore said he didn't raise any hard money during his 46 fund-raising calls from the White House. He's claimed there's "no controlling legal authority" against his dialing for soft money from government property.
But one of Gore's aides quoted him as saying "count me in on the calls" during the meeting on raising hard money as well.
Though Rosen is a close supporter of Gore, he is just one of about 350 attorneys at Greenberg Traurig. He also is no longer based in Miami. Rosen now works as counsel to the firm and offices out of his New York telecommunications company -- far from Richard in Tallahassee.
It was not immediately clear, however, how much contact -- if any -- Rosen has had with the Gore camp or Greenberg Traurig about the Florida election case.
Calls to Rosen's New York office and Gore's Nashville, Tenn., headquarters were not returned by deadline.
Victoria Reggie Kennedy signed on as counsel to Greenberg Traurig in its Washington office in 1995. She and husband Ted Kennedy are friends with Rosen.
She left in 1997, the same year Michael Brown pleaded guilty to breaking campaign-finance laws by laundering money to Kennedy's Senate campaign through three Greenberg Traurig employees. Brown had worked with the employees and Kennedy's wife in the firm's Washington office, among many other lawyers.
While Bush tapped a Democrat legal powerhouse, Gore's staying closer to home, politically.
His legal team is led by O'Melveny & Myers senior partner Warren Christopher, Clinton's former secretary of state. He's joined by O'Melveny partner Ronald Klain, former Gore chief of staff, and O'Melveny partner Mark Steinberg, Clinton's former associate deputy attorney general.
Steinberg served with Christopher on the commission that criticized the Los Angeles Police Department for using excessive force in arresting speeding black motorist Rodney King.
Black lawmakers are lobbying Attorney General Janet Reno to investigate alleged civil-rights violations tied to voting in Southern Florida.
Continue