Blogged by Shannyn Moore on 11/6/2008 1:18PM
SOMETHING SMELLS VERY FISHY IN ALASKA
Turnout Rate Reported as Lowest Ever in State, Down 11% From '04 Even With Both Palin and Obama on the Ballot
Hanging in the Balance in the Diebold State: Felon Ted Stevens' U.S. Senate Race, Corrupt Don Young's House Race & Much More...
Guest blogged by Shannyn Moore
[Ed Note: Now updated. See details at end of article.]
ANCHORAGE - Something stinks. Not just an ordinary low tide smell. Not like something you'd blame on the dog. It smells like an infection. For me to plug my nose, I'd have to overlook some curious facts.
In Alaska, more people voted for George W. Bush in 2004 than for Sarah Palin on Tuesday despite an identical 61-36 margin of victory. Yes. Only four years ago 54,304 Alaskans got off their sofas and voted for Bush, but decided to sit home and not vote for Palin in 2008.
Her numbers go on and on showing something that is statistically impossible without tampering or some event that would have been reported, such as an earthquake or something preventing people from getting to the polls.
She updates them on Huffington Post.
Posted November 7, 2008 | 06:09 AM (EST)
Alaska On eBay? Election Numbers Update
Initially there were only 49,000 votes left to count. Now there are 74,527 outstanding ballots. Curious. Even still — this year's turnout is still smaller than the election of 2004 by 6.1%. Hhhhhhmmmm. I would have to smoke more than Salmon to believe that Alaska, with Palin on the ballot, decided to sit this one out.
1) The 1,700% increase in the Democratic Caucus
2) 20,991 newly registered voters
3) The three largest political rallies in Alaska's history were held in September and October.
4) Early voters set an historic record. 25,000 Alaskans showed up to vote early in 2008 vs 11,000 in 2004; an increase of 127%!
5) 12.4% more Alaskans showed up for the August primary as compared to four years ago, before the Palin nomination.
6) The average Presidential Election turnout since we started keeping records is 66.7%. The 2008 Alaska voter turnout (including the uncounted 74,527 ballots) is 60.1%. THE LOWEST GENERAL TURN OUT save Clinton/Dole 96'.
7) The Lower 49 had a record voter turnout this year.
8) 80% of Alaskans approved of Sarah Palin just two months ago.
9) Anchorage Daily News front page on Election Day: Personnel Board Exonerates Palin She flew home to vote with Alaskans.
10) An unprecedented 16 point come-from-behind lead for Congressman Don Young over challenger Ethan Berkowitz.
11) Ted Stevens 7 felony convictions.
12) Don Young under investigation; spending over $1 million on legal fees this year.
The Republicans are doing this primarily to keep the Democrats from having 60 or more in the U.S. Senate. With 60 Democrats, the Democrats would be able to cut off Republican filibusters. The Democrats could force votes on Democratic legislation. The Republicans are cheating trying to prevent it.
The courts need some scientific surveying done to show that the people voted in a much larger percentage than the state is officially claiming. The courts ought to force a new election in Alaska if necessary to insure that the votes are properly counted.
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)