-Caveat Lector- WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a Prelude to War! CONGRESS ACTION: December 17, 2000 ================= SORE LOSERMAN: In his concession speech, Gore struck a tone of conciliation that is still absent in many of his supporters. Gore's sincerity will be judged by his past record and his future actions; but his many of his supporters continue to spew undiminished hatred at President-Elect George W. Bush and at republicans. Those public figures such as politicians, journalists, and others, who continue to claim that some votes "were never counted", who continue to charge that some conspiracy "stole" the election for Bush, who continue to attack the Rule of Law and denigrate the U.S. Supreme Court, and who continue to foment racial hatred, are playing a very dangerous and totally irresponsible game, by inflaming public passions with what they have to know are lies. Although Bush supporters carried "Sore-Loserman" signs during the election contest, the biggest sore losers in the post-election fight were the media. During the court battles, the media demonstrated very clearly that, at best, they maintain a woeful ignorance of the Constitution, at worst, that they hold it in utter contempt. At least Gore, having waged an unprecedented battle to overturn a Presidential election that he lost, can claim the slim excuse that he acted out of personal ambition to achieve a life-long goal, and individual citizens sometimes abuse the system and the institutions of the nation in order to satisfy their ambition. But the media is one of the major institutions of the nation. They like to call themselves "the Fourth Branch of government", guardians of the public good. They are protected by the shield of the First Amendment, so that their ability to report on government abuse and to keep citizens informed is inviolate. But they have forgotten one thing, as have many American citizens -- with rights come responsibilities. The media have abandoned their sacred trust. Some in the media have gone so far over the edge that they are no longer to be taken seriously, forfeiting any vestiges of credibility that they might have had left. The New York Times is a case in point. The Times was shameless, echoing the democrat party line and cheerleading Gore's court challenges all along, yet when the U.S. Supreme Court took the appeal from the Florida Supreme Court for the second time, the Times collapsed into a state of complete schizophrenia. In editorials on the very same day, the Times first said that the U.S. Supreme Court was destroying its credibility and showing "audacious.judicial activism" by even hearing the appeal. The Times followed that up with an editorial advising the U.S. Supreme Court to ignore the relevant "pinched legalisms" and demanding that it be more activist in creating a remedy that defends the "overarching themes of democracy". When the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled on Tuesday night, effectively ending Gore's hopes of overturning the election, the left-wing major media totally lost it. Tears began to well up in the eyes of the CNN anchors as the full import of the Court's ruling sank in. The articles and editorials in the New York Times and Washington Post of the following morning could best be characterized as whining temper tantrums. The New York Times commented: "This will long be remembered as an election decided by a conservative Supreme Court in favor of a conservative candidate while the ballots that could have brought a different outcome went uncounted in Florida." Implying that Bush's victory was illegitimate, the Times warned that Bush had better mollify angry democrats if he knows what's good for him. The Supreme Court, according to the Times, gave Bush the Presidency (voters had nothing to do with it, you understand), then reported that Justice Thomas' wife works for the Heritage Foundation, and asked, "Are we about to enter an era of government by professional ideologues?" The Times never got around to asking a similar question when Bill Clinton took office and his self-described "co-president" Hillary, alumnus of the radical left Children's Defense Fund, appointed fellow Children's Defense Fund alumnus Donna Shalala as Secretary of Health and Human Services. And the Times has been rabid in its support of Al Gore who, we are to conclude, the Times apparently thinks is not an ideologue. The Times rounded out its whining with an insulting, spite-filled piece by Maureen Dowd, of an imagined dialogue between the Supreme Court Justices. The Washington Post repeated the theme that the Supreme Court gave Bush the Presidency, then opined that the Republican Party was becoming "the minority party"; and wondered whether republicans could ever regain prestige as the party of giants such as Rockefeller, McKinley, and Grant. And like the pretensions of socialism that claimed to be the ideology of the future, the Post anointed democrats as the majority party of the future. It took a 50 year Cold War before the Soviet Union was relegated to the dustbin of history. Let that be a warning to conservatives and to Bush. To the left, politics is, and always will be, a Cold War, regardless of any conciliatory words from Gore. Leftists continue to portray the Bush Presidency as illegitimate. The media and democrats in Congress continue to define bipartisanship solely in terms of how quickly conservatives sell out their principles. A joint press conference by Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt, on the day after Gore conceded, made that abundantly clear. Democrats are never asked to step back an inch from their agenda, despite their minority status in Congress, despite the fact that their candidate lost the election and then dragged the nation through five weeks of partisan war trying to trample the law and overturn the election. If some Electoral College Electors change their votes on Monday and elect Gore, does anyone really think that Gore will reach out to invite republicans to join his cabinet (as Bush has done with democrats), or that Gore (or the media) will urge Daschle and Gephardt to compromise any part of their agenda and enact some republican ideas? Hardly. Daschle still threatens to obstruct Senate business unless he gets power-sharing; Janet Reno is still investigating NAACP charges of civil rights violations during the election (allegedly committed in democrat-dominated counties yet being blamed on republicans); democrats are still trying to influence republican Electors to change their votes; Jesse Jackson is still stirring up racial hatred -- and not a single democrat, including Gore, has said a word of condemnation. Other black leaders try (illogically) to justify 90% of blacks voting against Bush -- because racism hasn't been solved during 8 years of Clinton-Gore. They spew hatred at Bush despite the fact that Bush, not Clinton or Gore, proposes to appoint a black as Secretary of State for the first time; and appoint a black woman as his National Security Advisor, also for the first time. Their determination never to support Bush under any circumstances is particularly self-destructive. Given that attitude among blacks, why should any republican office-holder do anything at all to address the concerns of people who will continue to hate them and vilify them, and who will never support them, no matter what they do? For that matter, why should democrat office-holders do anything either, to address the concerns of people who will continue to support them and to vote for them, no matter what they fail to do? Gore may speak soothing words, but the goal of democrats is the total destruction of republicans and conservatism. Most on the left are, and will remain, implacable enemies of Bush and republicans. Bush ignores that at his, and our nation's, peril. CRISIS OF LEGITIMACY: In his dissent in the Florida Supreme Court's December 8 decision of Gore vs. Harris, Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Wells warned that the decision "propels this country and this state into an unprecedented and unnecessary Constitutional crisis." But was it a "Constitutional crisis", or was it really more of a crisis of legitimacy of the Florida Supreme Court; specifically, of four Justices on that Court? The votes were counted by the relevant Executive Branch agencies of Florida, and George W. Bush won. Pursuant to laws established by Florida's Legislature, a recount was conducted, and Bush won. The Florida Supreme Court intervened and ordered continued hand recounts in selected counties under rules most favorable to Gore. The Canvassing Boards in those counties -- composed of members of all three branches of government -- either decided that a further recount was unnecessary because sample recounts showed that Bush had won, or did partial recounts and submitted the results from heavily democrat districts within heavily democrat counties, and even those results confirmed that Bush had won. The proper official of the Florida Executive Branch, as designated by the Florida Legislature, thereupon certified that Bush had won the election. The Governor of Florida, acting pursuant to Florida law, signed the Certificate of Ascertainment confirming the election of the republican Presidential Electors, certifying that Bush had won. Challenges were pursued by Gore and his sympathizers in courts around Florida, to continue recounts, and to exclude or throw out absentee votes. Every judge to whom those claims were presented ruled against Gore and his sympathizers, one after the other confirming that Bush had won. The Florida Legislature met in special session to confirm the republican Electors because by every standard Bush had won the election. The Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals dismissed Bush's lawsuit to halt the hand recounts, on the basis that there was no harm because Bush had already been certified under the law as the winner of the election. The U.S. Congress let it be known that the republican Electors already certified for Bush would be the officially recognized Electors for Florida, because all the facts showed that Bush had won. Then four Justices of the Florida Supreme Court overruled all that, and ordered the hand recounting to continue without any standards for what constitutes a lawful vote; indeed, ordering the inclusion of votes from two different counties that had used diametrically opposite standards. On December 12, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Florida Supreme Court again, and again confirmed that George W. Bush had won. In the end, virtually every member of every branch of government at both the State and federal levels who had the opportunity to pass on the question came to the same conclusion -- except for four Justices of the Florida Supreme Court, two Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore. And except for the rabidly partisan media and some of the public, who are determined that they will allow no facts or logic to intrude on their fantasy that Al Gore really won, that Gore really received more popular votes -- despite the fact that at no time and under no circumstances, even after multiple alterations of the laws and the rules in favor of Gore, did Gore show more votes in Florida than Bush. It is not uncommon for people to retreat into a fantasy world when reality is not to their liking. But it is the height of arrogance for them to demand that their fantasy should render reality illegitimate. So was there really a "Constitutional crisis"? Or was it really just a crisis of the legitimacy of a handful of activist judges in Florida? Perhaps even a crisis of the legitimacy for activist judges in general, whose active partisanship has now been put under a spotlight, for members of the public who generally pay little attention to these things to see? Leftists in Congress, the media, and academia have promised that they will get access to the Florida ballots, and continue to count these invalid, yet carefully selected ballots from carefully selected democrat counties (under who knows what standards and under no supervision whatsoever). Some months from now they will no doubt announce that they "found" enough votes that Gore should have won. They will claim to have found "The Truth". It will be nothing more than a group of bitter left-wing partisans trying to undermine the legitimacy of a lawfully elected President out of sheer spite. That being the case, those democrats should have no objection if republicans also gain access to carefully selected ballots from carefully selected republican counties, and have those ballots recounted by a group of neutral investigators who would no doubt be just as acceptable to democrats, as democrat counters will be to republicans -- lets say, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and G. Gordon Liddy. You'll accept those results, won't you, democrats? FOR MORE INFORMATION. ======================== United States Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ http://supct.law.cornell.edu:8080/supct/ Florida Supreme Court: http://www.flcourts.org/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mr. Kim Weissman [EMAIL PROTECTED] *COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ] Want to be on our lists? Write at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a menu of our lists! <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
