Crush Liberalism

NY Times sandbagging for "voting irregularities" excuse

The financially failing NY Times, apparently fresh out of security-compromising stories to publish, has decided to issue excuses beforehand should the Dems not win control of the House and/or Senate. Lacking originality as always, the NYT has settled on the left’s main boogeyman: “voting irregularities”! From the Treason Times:

As dozens of states are enforcing new voter registration laws and switching to paperless electronic voting systems, officials across the country are bracing for an Election Day with long lines and heightened confusion, followed by an increase in the number of contested results.

In Maryland, Mississippi and Pennsylvania, a shortage of technicians has vendors for new machines soliciting applications for technical support workers on job Web sites like Monster.com. Ms. Oakley, who is also facing a shortage, raided the computer science department at the University of California, Davis, hiring 60 graduate students as troubleshooters.

Arizona, California, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania are among the states considered most likely to experience difficulties, according to voting experts who have been tracking the technology and other election changes.

“We’ve got new laws, new technology, heightened partisanship and a growing involvement of lawyers in the voting process,” said Tova Wang, who studies elections for the Century Foundation, a nonpartisan research group. “We also have the greatest potential for problems in more places next month than in any voting season before.”

Election officials in many of the states are struggling with delays in the delivery of machines before the election as old-fashioned lever and punch-card machines are phased out. A chronic shortage of poll workers, many of them retirees uncomfortable with new technology, has worsened matters.
…
Meanwhile, votes in about half of the 45 most competitive Congressional races, including contests in Florida, Georgia and Indiana, will be cast on electronic machines that provide no independent means of verification.

“In a close race, a machine error in one precinct could leave the results in doubt and the losing candidates won’t be able to get a recount,” said Warren Stewart, policy director for VoteTrustUSA, an advocacy group that has criticized electronic voting.

There’s more, if you care to read it, but I think you get the point: if the Dems lose, it’s because of vote fraud, Bush’s buddies at Diebold, or (insert paranoid leftist fantasy here) that’s the reason. However, I wonder if the Dems win if they’ll finally shut up about “voting irregularities”? Somehow, I doubt those curmudgeons will ever run out of material about which to stop kvetching.

October 19, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

More union stupidity

Neal Boortz was driving into work in Atlanta and observed the following situation:

A union worker was picketing Cox Newspapers for whatever the labor dispute du jour happened to be. How did said worker pass the time?

By reading the Atlanta Journal-Constitution…a Cox newspaper! I’m telling you, you just can’t make this stuff up!

October 19, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

The NorKoms wanted nuke technology for energy, huh?

Here is a recent satellite photo of North Korea and South Korea at night:

Notice how South Korea is bright, rife with electricity and lights? Now, observe how North Korea is as dark as the Kos kooks’ hearts?

But wait a second! I thought that Bubba’s nuclear exchange program with the NorKoms was supposed to give them the technology to power themselves? Weren’t we told, nay promised, that the NorKoms were going to use the technology NOT for building nuke weapons, but for energy production? Yet we see where the NorKoms are dark, yet their nuclear bombs burn bright.

Next time you get a Clinton/Carter/Albright apologist who insists that the 1994 agreement with North Korea was a smashing success, remember this picture before informing said apologist of his/her/its “bovine feces”, m’kay?

October 19, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

Foley’s replacement candidate loses court battle

From al-Reuters:

The candidate replacing Florida’s disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley on the ballot in next month’s election has been barred from posting signs at polling places clarifying that votes for Foley will actually go to him, authorities said on Wednesday.
…
Rules prohibited taking Foley’s name off the ballot so close to the November 7 election. So the Republicans’ replacement candidate, Joe Negron, had asked election supervisors to post signs at the polls telling voters that ballots cast for Foley would elect him instead.

But Florida Circuit Court Judge Janet Ferris ruled against posting the signs outside the nearly 300 precincts in the eight-county congressional district once represented by Foley.

“The problem with posting or delivering such notices at polling places, which would speak only to the District 16 Congressional race, is that the legislature did not authorize them,” Ferris wrote in an order granting the Florida Democratic Party’s request for an injunction blocking the signs.

Democratic party officials had said the notices would amount to a last-minute campaign boost for Negron, a state representative who jumped into the race with less than five weeks to go amid the mushrooming scandal that now threatens Republican control of Congress.

The judge is correct in her ruling. There are elections laws on the books that forbid campaign signs at the polls. If the legislature wanted to pass a law for situations like this, whereby a candidate was on the ballot despite his/her not running, then the legislature is free to do so. It is not up to a judge to legislate this from the bench.

After all, those of us on the right despise leftist judicial activists, correct? Well, we should be just as opposed to a right-wing activist court trying to undermine the legislature. I do not know what Judge Ferris’ political leanings are, and as far as this case goes, I don’t care…she got the ruling 100% correct.

October 19, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment