Selling America out to 13 Democrats

Turfgrass

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 26, 2002
1,153
5
0
Raleigh
? 2004 Michael Reagan
:cursin:

For some insane reason, the State Department has caved in to the outrageous demands of 13 House Democrats that foreign observers be invited to monitor the fall presidential election. It will be the first time such a team of outsiders has been present for a U.S. presidential election.

The 13 Democratic members of the House of Representatives wrote to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in July, and asked him to send observers.

Has the Bush administration lost its moorings? What in the world could they have been thinking when they allowed the State Department to invite a bunch of foreign busybodies at the Vienna-based Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to monitor the 2004 presidential election?

Did it not occur to the administration that by asking outsiders to come here to make sure that the election will be on the up-and-up they are tacitly admitting that the administration can't be trusted to run an election and must have foreign observers to make sure they don't engage in electoral hanky-panky?

That, after all, was the real motive behind the demand of the 13 House Democrats that the United Nations be asked to monitor the election. They made it quite clear that they believe that the 2000 election results in Florida were rigged in Bush's favor and that the election was stolen from Al Gore. Thus outsiders had to be imported to keep us honest.

When Kofi Annan turned them down on the grounds that the request had to come from the administration, and House Republicans amended a foreign aid bill to bar any use of federal funds for the United Nations to monitor U.S. elections, the 13 asked Secretary of State Colin Powell to invite the United Nations to send observers, and the State Department came to the Democrats' rescue.

In a July 30 letter, Assistant Secretary of State Paul Kelly told the Democrats the OSCE, not the United Nations, had been invited.

The Democrats were jubilant. And they should have been. The administration had all but told them that they were right about the 2000 election being stolen.

Crowed Texas Democrat Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, "I am pleased that Secretary Powell is as committed as I am to a fair and democratic process. The presence of monitors will assure Americans that America cares about their votes and it cares about its standing in the world."

An equally ecstatic California Democrat Rep. Barbara Lee chirped, "This represents a step in the right direction toward ensuring that this year's elections are fair and transparent. I am pleased that the State Department responded by acting on this need for international monitors. We sincerely hope that the presence of the monitors will make certain that every person's voice is heard, every person's vote is counted."

In other words, that's not what happened in 2000. Every person's voice was not heard, and every person's vote was not counted.

Just what's going on here? Did the president approve of this knot-headed idea? What the administration has done, in effect is to give credence to the Democrats' false charge that the Bush campaign stole the election from Al Gore.

The OSCE's job is to look at Third World countries and banana republics and monitor their elections. The United States is neither a Third World country nor a banana republic, and we can run our own elections, thank you.

We have the freest and fairest elections in the world, and what Washington has now done is to tell the world that we have done something terribly wrong and must be watched.

But that's not all. The president should realize that whoever got this outrageous idea has put his re-election at risk. He is wrong in thinking that conservatives, who are always being asked to carry the weight no matter what he does, will continue to back him no matter how much he seeks to make the Democrats happy by buying into their stupidity.

At what point does the last brick crumble and bring the administration's house tumbling down? At what point will conservatives simply stay home on Election Day, not vote and help John Kerry win?

Sacrificing the sovereignty of this nation to placate a handful of 13 far-out Democrat liberals comes close to that point.
 

Clem D

Mad Pisser
Forum Member
May 26, 2004
11,277
31
0
52
Long Branch NJ
If there is nothing to hide what is the problem of letting the world witness it? We as a nation need to make sure that neither party steals an election. What happened in Florida had to alarm all Americans. If it didn't, you did not read enough about what transpired. Funny thing is we are poised to have it happen again as nothing has changed.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,573
226
63
"the bunker"
thank god that we have an organization with the moral and ethical principles of the u.n. in our country to monitor our election...

an organization with cuba,syria,libya and saudi arabia on it`s human rights commission....send some reps into the good ole` u.s. of a. to oversee our democratic elections....some from countries that wouldn`t know a democratic election if it bit them on the ass...

i feel so much more reassured...this is why the extreme liberal left is called hysterical...

if the u.n.can ensure integrity in our election,maybe we can bring in o.j. simpson and fatty arbuckle to oversee the mark peterson trial......

ooops,fatty`s dead....and the u.n. is corrupt....



who cares?????
 
Last edited:

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
I hope they come here and learn soemthing from us. The real scarey part about this election is not some one coming to watch. Its the 13 states where they have no back up to the electronic votes. You talk about a chit waiting to happen.
 

Chanman

:-?PipeSmokin'
Forum Member
0785263195.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg


j/k fellas, but this is confusing. The U.N. must feel like the Red Headed Step Child. In public we acknowledge & respect them while berating and thrashing them behind closed doors or you can use the Mommy Dearest analogy if that seems more apt. This election is such a crock at times. It would be funny if lives were not at stake. The ppl who were saying that being a good soldier has nothing to do w/being a good President, ala Clinton, are now solidly behind War hero Kerry. I heard Snake Head, (Carville), was really animated on this issue. Well give credit where it is due
http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html
and may the best candidate win.
Thank God Hillary isn't in the running. :shocked:

You talk about a chit waiting to happen.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
I think it is a disgrace that we invite anyone in. In my opinion Bush did steal Florida last year. Maybe Kennedy stole his election in 1960. For all I know every year some states cheat. The thing is that it is our election. We do not need any outsiders monitoring it. I do not see what good could come of it. If one side or the other cheats that is our dirty laundry to clean up. No one elses. As Americans we will clean it up.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Our problem is voter turn out. We here so many complain and offer there opinions. But they never vote. We need more then 52%. The people really need to speak out the right way. It's hard to believe we cant get at least 65% voter turn out. We get that kind of turn out and these elections won't be close at all.
 

ocelot

Registered User
Forum Member
May 21, 2003
1,937
0
0
Mount Shasta
Well if the U.S.A. can't run a proper free and democratic election who can? I really don't see the need for UN oversight of our elections either though maybe its just a "field trip" for them.
 

BEACHBOY

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 13, 2001
1,467
7
38
70
conroe,texas usa
The election are rig

The election are rig

these new voting machine that they are using around this country are going to steal the election again why else would they not want a paper trail so we cannot check to see what happen!!!!!
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top