TWELVE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS this month signed a letter to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan asking the U.N. to send international observers to the United States to monitor our election this November 2.
“We are deeply concerned that the right of U.S. citizens to vote in free and fair elections is again in jeopardy,” read the letter, all of whose signers are leftist Democrats and seven of whom belong to the socialist-aligned Progressive Caucus in the House of Representatives.
Mr. Annan, mired by a corruption investigation into the U.N. oil-for-food program in Iraq that he controlled, has already declined this request.
“Generally, the United Nations does not intervene in electoral affairs unless the request comes from a national government or an electoral authority – not the legislative branch,” U.N. spokeswoman Marie Okabe told one reporter.
The request was also absurd for another self-evident reason. It in effect asks that agents
from undemocratic regimes such as Communist Cuba, the People’s Republic of China,
totalitarian North Korea, Syria and the theocracy of Iran (that recently disqualified in advance all of its “election” candidates who dared to advocate reform) be given the power to sit in judgment of American democracy.
The leftwing Democrats requesting this foreign intervention into our election doubtless did so with the expectation that it would benefit their side. At a minimum, most such U.N. observers would come from countries politically to the left of the U.S. and would almost certainly criticize U.S. states that exclude felons and the mentally ill from voting.
Democrats are right to believe that they would win a majority of criminal and mentally-impaired voters. When analysts traced the 10,000 convicted felons who illegally voted in Florida in 2000, they discovered that 85 percent of these criminals had registered as Democrats.
Listen for five minutes to any Democratic candidate. What that Democrat says will provide ample evidence that the socialist class warfare – “We’ll take the wealth from the evil rich and give it to you” – hate rhetoric this party’s politicians always use is calculated to appeal to those with either a criminal mentality or an irrational, low I.Q. mind – or both. No wonder Democrats in recent years have crusaded so hard to enfranchise criminals and the mentally impaired, their natural constituency.
Any such criticism by U.N. observers could be used politically to de-legitimize Republican victories this November. And it would provide political pressure to include these disenfranchised groups in future elections.
But what if the United Nations were free from corruption, and all its member nations were genuinely free and democratic? What if U.N. election observers arrived with no envy or hatred or other prejudice against the United States, nor any left-edged ideological axe to grind?
If these things were true, then to help right the wrongs left in our democracy we ought to invite U.N. observers to intervene immediately – not just on election day this November.
The estimable Christopher Hitchens proposed such international oversight of our election process in a prescient October 28, 1999 column in the far-left magazine The Nation. He noted that a “free and fair” election involved far more than the marking and counting of ballots on a single day.
Elections can be rigged far in advance of election day, observed Hitchens, and “free and fair” democracy can thereby be thwarted by many means. He proposed several “questions that the UN and international monitors would have to consider.”
“Are there restrictions,” asked Hitchens, “placed on the entry of third-party or independent candidates?”
The first thing that honest U.N. observers would notice is that Democrats in 2004 have been using a variety of “dirty tricks,” just as veteran maverick candidate Ralph Nader recently charged, to keep his name off state ballots.
Honest U.N. observers would declare that because the Democratic Party has subverted democracy by keeping this ideological rival off state ballots, either Mr. Nader’s name should be included or Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry’s name should also be kept off ballots in states such as Arizona and Oregon.
Has money unethically (or illegally) been used to purchase voters or candidates, asked Hitchens, or to give certain candidates an unfair advantage?
The second thing that honest U.N. observers would recognize is that Democrats have
benefited from tens of millions of dollars of propaganda advertising bankrolled by tax-
exempt leftwing activist groups, labor unions and international money-men, in particular George Soros. (Mr. Soros has said that defeating incumbent Republican President George W. Bush will make the world safer by making America weaker. Soros is half right: the election of internationalist John F. Kerry would make America weaker, but that weakness would produce more danger for the world than safety.)
This anti-Bush propaganda, honest U.N. observers would declare, has been paid for in
circumvention of campaign funding ethics rules and laws and must be halted immediately. As reparations, its victim President Bush should be given at least two months of free and unchallenged broadcast airtime prior to the election to correct the unfair imbalance this anti-democratic pro-Democrat propaganda has caused.
“Is access to the media,” asked Hitchens, “fairly apportioned among candidates and parties…?”
A third thing honest U.N. observers would document is that most of the establishment
media in the United States – from newspapers to network television newscasts to
Hollywood movies such as “Fahrenheit 9/11” – slants heavily in favor of one political party, the Democratic Party.
This imbalance clearly undermines democratic fairness. At a minimum, honest international observers would demand that the media practice “affirmative action” by immediately hiring more pro-Republican reporters, anchors and documentary filmmakers.
And until a fair balance in the media is achieved, such observers would urge voters to be skeptical about anything critical of Republican incumbents that they read in print and see on TV and movie screens. These observers could become an impartial “Truth Squad” pointing daily to examples of anti-Republican bias in the media.
How “democratic” are these dozen Democrat members of Congress who have asked the United Nations to oversee our election?
One of the letter signers is Rep. William Lacy Clay (D.-Missouri) of the Progressive Caucus, who in 2000 got a Democrat-appointed judge to illegally order polling places in certain heavily-Democratic St. Louis neighborhoods kept open for an extra three hours while busloads of potentially fraudulent voters arrived and cast ballots. Republicans have charged that the resulting gross voting irregularities tipped a razor-close U.S. Senate election to the Democrats. Honest U.N. observers would have challenged Clay’s illegal tampering with this election.
Another signer is Rep. Corrine Brown (D.-Florida) of the Progressive Caucus, who the House Ethics Committee in September 2000 concluded had “demonstrated, at the least, poor judgment and created substantial concerns regarding both the appearance of impropriety and the reputation of the House.” Brown’s daughter in 1998 accepted a $50,000 Lexus from an African millionaire for whom Brown intervened with the Clinton Administration to get criminal charges dropped. The Clinton Administration made it impossible for the Ethics Committee to interview this millionaire about his relationship with Congresswoman Brown, thereby thwarting its investigation. The St. Petersburg Times also investigated Rep. Brown taking $10,000 in 1998 from another corrupt source.
A third signer is Rep. Julia Carson (D.-Indiana) of the Progressive Caucus, who during the televised candidate debate just prior to the 2002 election, facing likely defeat by a Republican who had documented her non-payment of property taxes from 1997 to 2001, rather than answer questions simply walked off the stage and then told reporters that her white opponent was guilty of “racial polarization.” This dishonest, disreputable playing of the race card worked, activated her base, and gave Carson a 53 percent win in a district originally gerrymandered to give her an advantage. She won, in other words, through lies, demagoguery, racism and refusing to engage in an honest debate in a contest whose playing field had already been tilted in her favor.
Similar indictments could easily demonstrate the anti-democratic hypocrisy of the other nine leftwing Democrats who have called for U.N. election observers this coming November 2. For the record, they are Rep. Barbara Lee, co-chair of the Progressive Caucus and the former aide and successor to radical Rep. Ron “Red” Dellums from Berkeley, California; New York Members of Congress Jerrold Nadler, Edolphus Towns, Joseph Crowley and Carolyn Maloney; Mechista Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona, Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland; Rep. Danny Davis of Illinois; Michael Honda of California; and the lawmaker spearheading this propaganda effort Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
The overriding hypocrisy that these Democrat lawmakers share is that all come from gerrymandered districts rigged to elect Democrats – and in some cases, Democrats of a predetermined skin color or ethnicity. This calculated and cynical manipulation of congressional district boundaries does more to undermine legitimate democracy than could a Himalayan mountain chain of dimpled chads.
The recent redistricting debate in Texas was over ending the gerrymandering Democrats had imposed that so rigged the process that this state which now votes 57 percent Republican was still electing two more Democrats than Republicans to Congress.
During the 1972 Presidential election Republicans and Democrats had a total nationwide difference in congressional votes cast of only about 125,000 – a difference, on average, of only one vote per precinct. But because of Democratic gerrymandering, this virtual-tie in votes produced 41 more Democratic members of Congress and absolute Democratic control of the House of Representatives, which under our Constitution is where all taxing and spending bills must originate.
Modern gerrymandering means that instead of voters picking their representatives, Democratic members of Congress (acting in collusion with state legislator Democrats) nowadays pick their voters, packing their districts with neighborhoods that vote Democratic and excluding neighborhoods that vote Republican.
(Some Republican politicians go along with this, because to create two 55 percent Democratic districts a Democratic legislature usually has to move Republican voters into one district that votes 70 percent or more Republican – and this means job security and easy re-elections for the Republican lawmaker in that gerrymandered district.)
In one disputed Texas district, noted a judge, a Democratic congresswoman actually drew boundaries for her own district that included individual homes of Democratic voters and excluded individual homes next door whose owners were registered as Republicans. Is this what you mean by a “free and fair” democracy, Texas Congresswoman Johnson?
Truly honest U.N. observers would demand a nonpartisan re-drawing of district boundaries to end the gerrymandering that today guarantees easy re-elections for these un-democratic dozen leftwing Democrats – gerrymandering that today allows them to spit with arrogant impunity in the faces of the majority of Americans.
If corporations colluded to gerrymander the marketplace as these 12 Democrat politicians have done to manipulate who their voters are, the Justice Department would act immediately to restore free and fair competition.
These are a few examples of how honest U.N. election observers could help assure that “the right of U.S. citizens to vote in free and fair elections” is no longer in jeopardy.