DEMOCRAT VOTER FRAUD VERSUS REPUBLICAN ELECTION FRAUD

The Republican stole the elections in 2000 and 2004. They did it via proprietary computer-voting machines; voter caging targeting low-income neighborhoods and minority neighborhoods and even troops serving overseas; denying legitimate Black voters the vote in Florida to the tune of some 20,000, far and away enough to have put Al Gore into the White House; jamming Democratic phone centers; robo-calling Democrats with statements that if they vote, they'd be violating all sorts of laws or instructing them to go to the wrong place on election day; and by controlling the U.S. Supreme Court with partisan, unethical so-called justices. There were other means used, but those are the ones that stand out in my memory (I'm working from memory here).

Now, the Republicans are claiming constantly that the Democrats are trying to steal the election via flooding registration roles with fake voters. The Republicans are targeting ACORN in particular. ACORN though has made clear that it has flagged suspected registrations submitted, which flagging is required by law. Also, ACORN cannot legally not turn in suspicious registrations, such as those made in the name of Mickey Mouse. They must turn in all registration forms by law. ACORN isn't without errors. They don't claim they are.

What's really going on here? Well, let me tell you. This is Karl Rove. He's attacking the Democrats strength. The Democrats have a huge legit complaint against the Republicans for election fraud. Also, the Democrats have been far outpacing the Republicans in voter registrations. It's the first point though that bothers Karl Rove the most. That's why he spread the word to go after the Democrats by alleging fraud (since the Republicans committed clear and huge fraud) and concerning actual elections.

Rove is trying to take the subject off the Republican neocon lies about 9/11, lies to take the U.S. to war against Iraq, lies about the costs of the war and occupation, lies about Iran (they never supplied all the proof they promised did they), lies about domestic spying, lies about extraordinary renditions, lies about the CIA black sites, lies about the economy; lies about torture....need I go on?

I don't doubt that there are Democrats who will cheat. I don't doubt that there are people who have messed up at ACORN. I don't buy that there are anywhere near the numbers the Republican excitement would suggest.

No, this is Karl Rove misinformation and misdirection and his attempt to change the subject from the Republicans cheating on a huge scale such that George W. Bush was not legally elected in 2000 or 2004.

The people get what they deserve in the aggregate though, now and in the hereafter when those two times are viewed together. Those who lived high here while being unethical will have to make up for it in the hereafter. The Universe is controlled by a mind that is just beyond the comprehension of human kind. Karl is going to find that out the hard way.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.