Beyond Theft
The Royalist uprising that removed the American voter's role in the 2000 election was, indisputedly, the beginning of the process of abrogating the United States Constitution in perpetuity, not the end. For it was never the goal of the Royalist traitors merely to place their puppet boy on the throne. They have to keep him there by any means necessary. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is exposing the lengths to which the Royalist faction went to ensure that the will of the people was thwarted again in 2004. Digby (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/) has posted an excerpt and a link to the entire article, and offers this conclusion:
"The real question, of course, is what will be done about it and NO! I refuse to give into fashionable cyncism! So yes, dear friends, I really do believe the country will focus like a laserbeam on our corrupt election practices. I have no doubt the moment there's a squeaker and the Republicans lose a big one by 2% or less, the MSM will ensure that election reform becomes the only subject worth talking about, even more than the civil rights of 1 day-old fertilized eggs! (Unless there's a missing young white woman that week, but that goes without saying.)"
Kennedy makes a compelling and well-substantiated case that Royalist forces in the Ohio state and local election machinery deliberately discarded enough Democratic ballots (after systmatically purging election rolls of qualified voters from Democratic precincts) to throw the election of 2004 to King George. Anyone who has been paying attenion already knew that, but it's nice to see someone actually put the words in print.
Thus, we know the Royalists took the last two presidential elections out of the hands of the people who were supposed to decide it. What about the other national election held since the 2001 coronation? In 2002, it was a dead-bolt certainty that Democrats would hold on to their one-vote majority in the Senate (for which they had ex-Republican/non-Royalist Jim Jeffords to thank) and there was a better-than-even chance they would reclaim the majority in the House. Neither happened, and, in fact, the Royalist faction gained seats in both houses, to the surprise and shock of any impartial historian.
The credit for the stunning Royalist victory of 2002 has always been placed at the feet of the royal court's resident Machiavelli, Karl Rove. It was he who turned the long-held Bush dynasty grudge against its former partner-in-crime Saddam Hussein into a "grave" and "immediate" threat to U.S. security. It was Rove who stroked the post-9/11 fears of the American people into a raging anti-Iraq fire, leaving the Democrats cowering in puddles of their own effluvia. It was, the conventional political wisdom holds, a masterful use of a single issue to weld a national consensus in favor of King George.
Maybe. But given the disenfranchisement employed (most notably) in Florida during the 2000 election and again in Ohio during 2004, isn't just as likely that the king's minions at the state and local level simply plied their devious trade in the same way, with the same results? Put it another way: if you know a man stole two television sets from you, is it unreasonable to look in his direction when a third TV goes missing?
This pattern of lawlessness -- what the criminologists call "recidivism"-- suggests this year's congressional elections will be no more fair and honest than the last three national elections have been. The same felons are in charge of the process - from the White House down. There is no reason to believe they won't pull every trick out of their bag of corruption in the effort to prop up the regime with a reliably compliant legislative branch. But this is not 2002. Or 2004.
In 2006, King George is the single most reviled person in America. If there is a unifying issue in this election, it is his brutally ruthless incompetence. Even died-in-the-wool Royalists are deserting him in droves. There is every possibility that the electorate will make a massive statement in November -- enough! With each passing day, the Royalist hold on power becomes more tenuous. Oh, they can trot out their red-meat issues -- fear of the brown people, fear of the gay people, fear of women who chose not to bear children. But in this political climate, none of them is likely to shift the balance of horror at what the king hath wrought during his reign.
With sentiment running so high and so ferevently against the regime, attempts at such thefts as perpetrated in the past three elections may be met with vehement public outrage. More to the point, they may not work. There may be a tide rising that is so strong, mere voter suppression and disenfranchisement won't be enough to turn it back. This may, in short, be an election that simply can't be stolen. What's a monarch to do?
The answer is obvious: call it off. When it becomes clear -- sometime this summer-- that there is no way, legal or otherwise, for the Royalists to maintain their grip on the U.S. Capitol, the royal court will roll out the sure-fire, can't-miss strategy that has been waiting in the wings for nearly five years. They will cancel the election.
Oh, maybe not the whole election. Maybe they'll only call off voting in specific states, those under "increased threat of terrorist attack". Indeed, they have already laid the groundwork by declaring New York undeserving of increased amounts of federal anti-terrorism money. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13082207/) If New York, which has been attacked by terrorist cells on two different occasions in the past 15 years, is not as much at risk these days, what areas are in the terrorists' sights?
Florida. Ohio. Nebraska. All states where this year's congressional elections could turn Congress Democratic. Do not be surprised if, sometime before Election Day, "credible and specific terrorist threats" are reported in all three states, threats so terrifying it would not be in the public interest to stage an event that would put large numbers of people in easily-identifiable, easily-targeted locations -- like polling places. So the elections will, of course, need to be cancelled. Well, they'll probably say the elections are "postponed" -- a temporary measure until the threat passes. Then, a few months later when the "all clear" sounds, Floridians, Ohioans and Nebraskans will be allowed to cast their ballots -- say, in the dead of winter, when turnout is comfortably low and a little ballot box stuffing will go a long way. And thus, once again, King George will have triumphed, for the Royalists will be able to hang on to their fig-leaf majorities in the House and Senate and continue rubber stamping royal decrees.
Would they get away with it? You decide -- by answering these questions: Did they get away with stealing the 2000 election? Did they get away with stealing the 2002 election? Did they get away with stealing the 2004 election? And if they do get away with it again, there will be nothing preventing Karl Rove and his clan of courtiers from carrying out the final step in their master plan:
Cancelling the 2008 election and keeping King George on the throne permanently.
"The real question, of course, is what will be done about it and NO! I refuse to give into fashionable cyncism! So yes, dear friends, I really do believe the country will focus like a laserbeam on our corrupt election practices. I have no doubt the moment there's a squeaker and the Republicans lose a big one by 2% or less, the MSM will ensure that election reform becomes the only subject worth talking about, even more than the civil rights of 1 day-old fertilized eggs! (Unless there's a missing young white woman that week, but that goes without saying.)"
Kennedy makes a compelling and well-substantiated case that Royalist forces in the Ohio state and local election machinery deliberately discarded enough Democratic ballots (after systmatically purging election rolls of qualified voters from Democratic precincts) to throw the election of 2004 to King George. Anyone who has been paying attenion already knew that, but it's nice to see someone actually put the words in print.
Thus, we know the Royalists took the last two presidential elections out of the hands of the people who were supposed to decide it. What about the other national election held since the 2001 coronation? In 2002, it was a dead-bolt certainty that Democrats would hold on to their one-vote majority in the Senate (for which they had ex-Republican/non-Royalist Jim Jeffords to thank) and there was a better-than-even chance they would reclaim the majority in the House. Neither happened, and, in fact, the Royalist faction gained seats in both houses, to the surprise and shock of any impartial historian.
The credit for the stunning Royalist victory of 2002 has always been placed at the feet of the royal court's resident Machiavelli, Karl Rove. It was he who turned the long-held Bush dynasty grudge against its former partner-in-crime Saddam Hussein into a "grave" and "immediate" threat to U.S. security. It was Rove who stroked the post-9/11 fears of the American people into a raging anti-Iraq fire, leaving the Democrats cowering in puddles of their own effluvia. It was, the conventional political wisdom holds, a masterful use of a single issue to weld a national consensus in favor of King George.
Maybe. But given the disenfranchisement employed (most notably) in Florida during the 2000 election and again in Ohio during 2004, isn't just as likely that the king's minions at the state and local level simply plied their devious trade in the same way, with the same results? Put it another way: if you know a man stole two television sets from you, is it unreasonable to look in his direction when a third TV goes missing?
This pattern of lawlessness -- what the criminologists call "recidivism"-- suggests this year's congressional elections will be no more fair and honest than the last three national elections have been. The same felons are in charge of the process - from the White House down. There is no reason to believe they won't pull every trick out of their bag of corruption in the effort to prop up the regime with a reliably compliant legislative branch. But this is not 2002. Or 2004.
In 2006, King George is the single most reviled person in America. If there is a unifying issue in this election, it is his brutally ruthless incompetence. Even died-in-the-wool Royalists are deserting him in droves. There is every possibility that the electorate will make a massive statement in November -- enough! With each passing day, the Royalist hold on power becomes more tenuous. Oh, they can trot out their red-meat issues -- fear of the brown people, fear of the gay people, fear of women who chose not to bear children. But in this political climate, none of them is likely to shift the balance of horror at what the king hath wrought during his reign.
With sentiment running so high and so ferevently against the regime, attempts at such thefts as perpetrated in the past three elections may be met with vehement public outrage. More to the point, they may not work. There may be a tide rising that is so strong, mere voter suppression and disenfranchisement won't be enough to turn it back. This may, in short, be an election that simply can't be stolen. What's a monarch to do?
The answer is obvious: call it off. When it becomes clear -- sometime this summer-- that there is no way, legal or otherwise, for the Royalists to maintain their grip on the U.S. Capitol, the royal court will roll out the sure-fire, can't-miss strategy that has been waiting in the wings for nearly five years. They will cancel the election.
Oh, maybe not the whole election. Maybe they'll only call off voting in specific states, those under "increased threat of terrorist attack". Indeed, they have already laid the groundwork by declaring New York undeserving of increased amounts of federal anti-terrorism money. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13082207/) If New York, which has been attacked by terrorist cells on two different occasions in the past 15 years, is not as much at risk these days, what areas are in the terrorists' sights?
Florida. Ohio. Nebraska. All states where this year's congressional elections could turn Congress Democratic. Do not be surprised if, sometime before Election Day, "credible and specific terrorist threats" are reported in all three states, threats so terrifying it would not be in the public interest to stage an event that would put large numbers of people in easily-identifiable, easily-targeted locations -- like polling places. So the elections will, of course, need to be cancelled. Well, they'll probably say the elections are "postponed" -- a temporary measure until the threat passes. Then, a few months later when the "all clear" sounds, Floridians, Ohioans and Nebraskans will be allowed to cast their ballots -- say, in the dead of winter, when turnout is comfortably low and a little ballot box stuffing will go a long way. And thus, once again, King George will have triumphed, for the Royalists will be able to hang on to their fig-leaf majorities in the House and Senate and continue rubber stamping royal decrees.
Would they get away with it? You decide -- by answering these questions: Did they get away with stealing the 2000 election? Did they get away with stealing the 2002 election? Did they get away with stealing the 2004 election? And if they do get away with it again, there will be nothing preventing Karl Rove and his clan of courtiers from carrying out the final step in their master plan:
Cancelling the 2008 election and keeping King George on the throne permanently.
posted by wally at 8:40 AM
0 comments
