By Shawn Macomber on 7.14.04 @ 12:06AM
Some Democrats are calling for the U.N. to oversee elections this fall -- in the U.S.
WASHINGTON -- After years of watering down voting laws to the
point where it is considered a civil rights violation in several
states for a poll worker to ask to see a license or proof of
residency, some Democrats have suddenly reversed course. They want
to bring in United Nations observers to ensure a "free and fair"
election in the United States.
The letter to Kofi Annan, authored by Texas Congresswoman Eddie
Bernice Johnson and co-signed by seven other Dems in the House,
complains that as the next election approaches, "there is more
cause for alarm rather than less" and that the right to vote will
be compromised. It charges the U.S. with systematically suppressing
minority votes. Without any statistical data or other proof, the
congresspersons contend that "over half of the votes that went
uncounted nationwide during the last election were cast by nonwhite
voters" and that black voters in America were "ten times more
likely than non-black voters to have their ballots rejected."
Sigh. Despite several recounts certifying Bush the slim winner
of the last presidential election, many liberals prefer to see a
conspiracy by the Man to keep the good voters down. They refuse to
believe that Bush could get into office through means short of
fraud.
In the letter to Annan, Johnson says as much, calling the
Supreme Court decision that ended the 2000 election "one of the
most politicized and improper decisions in U.S. jurisprudence."
Maybe so but look at some of the shenanigans that led up to it:
attempts to recount only Democrat-controlled counties, to shake
more Gore chads out of those machines; nutty rulings by the
partisan Florida Supreme Court, who were routinely spanked by the
Supremes; refusing to count the Bush-leaning military vote.
LET'S CALL THE SPADES HERE: Democrats do not want a "free and fair"
election in 2004. They want to win, and they are willing to preen
and dissemble to do so. Right now, they're for stronger oversight
by an international body but after November 2, they'll go back to
giving illegal immigrants, 14-year-olds, and cute puppies the right
to vote.
It's almost a chore to say this but the United States doesn't
need international observers. We had a close election, which happen
from time to time. But power still passed peacefully. There were no
pitched battles between Al Gore and George W. militias. We are not
living in Nicaragua or Argentina. There was no coup. Some may not
like the Supreme Court decision, but then about half of us were
bound not to.
That said, even if the United States did need observers, there
is no way we could pretend that the U.N. is qualified for the job.
After all, the Secretary General spends half of his U.S.
taxpayer-funded time in front of television cameras flogging the
current administration. Are we really to believe that the
organization, as averse to the idea of a second Bush term as it is,
would not tip the scales in favor of John Kerry?
When Johnson and Co. write that "As a member of the
international community, we firmly believe in the importance of
international human rights law and its applicability and relevance
to the U.S.," they are really appealing to the international
community of Bush haters to meddle in an American election.
It would be nice to believe that, no matter what one feels about
George W. Bush, Americans can agree that it is we who should decide
our own elections.
topics:
Television, Law, Supreme Court, Military, United Nations
