"Alien vote-snatchers are worse than murderers. . . In a saner time, they would probably be hanged."

Election Thievery Redress Tool.

You know, we don't have the death penalty in this country for simple thievery, except in the case of federal elections. That law isn't on the books. Yet. But it does exist. How do I know? Try it and find out. -- Mike Vanderboegh.

My thanks to Pete at WRSA for drawing my attention to this piece on election thievery at American Thinker by Selwyn Duke -- "The Democrats' Final Recourse: Massive Vote Fraud."

Duke makes several salient observations about this. The first and most important one is this:

Most of all, though, we have to remember that leftists are, well, leftists. They are simply much more corrupt than those on the right. I know this sounds like blind partisanship, so I'll explain.

I'll introduce this with a point once made by former military-intelligence man Ralph Peters about how you could understand the Taliban: You have to view them as aliens. His point was that most people have trouble conceiving of mindsets radically different from their own and, consequently, often mistakenly assume that others operate by the same principles they do. Even liberals recognize this phenomenon -- when they warn of "ethnocentrism." I, however, am more concerned about conservocentrism.

If you're an average bright-eyed conservative and you really want to understand leftists, begin by viewing them as aliens. Because they really aren't like you, and the difference isn't simply ideology, either. They truly are far more dishonest, deceitful, and manipulative than conservatives.

In explaining why this is so, I'll again draw an analogy to Islamists. Many have pointed out that Western and Islamic thought dictate very different things with respect to honesty. While the West's formative religion, Christianity, teaches that lying is a sin, period, Islam states that lying to an infidel for the glory of Allah is a good. In other words, Christians can lie, but they must commit what they consider a sin to do so. Muslims can do so with what they view as divine approval.

Another difference is that Islamic thought includes a concept known as "dual truth," which basically states, writes American Thinker's Patrick Poole, "that what may be true in the realm of religion may be contrary to what is true in nature." Thus, even if an action is forbidden in Islamic texts, Muslims may be able to take it in the "real world." It's always convenient when you have more than one "truth" with which to justify behavior.

This brings us to liberals. Like Islamists, they have more than one "truth" from which to choose, something they readily admit to with pronouncements such as "that is your truth; someone else's might be different." To be precise, however, they use the word "truth" loosely, as a synonym for taste, and don't actually believe in Truth, properly defined (i.e., divinely ordained morality). They are moral relativists.

What does this mean? It means the sky -- or perhaps I should say the netherworld -- is the limit for behavior restrictions. Unlike Islamists, liberals don't have to find their justifications in medieval texts or complex philosophical contortions, as their credo is simple: "If it feels good, do it." Without belief in anything that transcends man to use as a yardstick for behavior, they ultimately have nothing left to use but the "god within," which is just a gussied-up name for emotion. And their emotion-driven ends really do justify their means. If they feel that conservatives are "evil," conservatives must be. And if they feel that any tactic necessary to vanquish that evil is fair game, it must be. Understand that beneath the light of their deified feelings, lying, cheating or stealing to win elections is not merely justifiable -- it is a "good," and one they do with the only approval they need: self-approval. They are aliens from a planet much like the Hell described by the Devil in an old comic strip (in The New Yorker, I think) when he said, "There's no right or wrong down here. It's whatever works for you." It is a place where there is a wall of separation between man and Truth. . .

Remember folks, I am an ex-collectivist. As a revolutionary communist in the 70s I was taught how to lie, taught in fact how think in such a way that truth was subject to Marxist dialectic and thus any lie was in fact "objective truth." Believe me as an "ex-alien" escaped from the Borg, these folks' thought processes are alien to the "Country Class" like us.

Duke concludes:

And the truth is that in this election, as in every one, some races will be close enough so that vote fraud can be a factor. So how should we proceed once results are in? First, conservatives need an attitude adjustment: They have to understand the nature of their enemy (as outlined above) and become warriors. We mustn't for a moment entertain the notion that the best thing for the nation after a suspicious loss is to concede the race graciously. Rather, the best thing for the nation is to oust the alien vote-snatchers from power by any moral means necessary.

Second, we must recognize that razor-close races almost always go Democrat for a reason (think Al Franken in Minnesota) and view every such loss as a probable vote-fraud scenario. Then we must analyze exit polling -- which has become a very precise science -- for discrepancies between its findings and election results. And when they are found, the matter must be sifted to the very bottom.

Alien vote-snatchers are worse than murderers. They not only steal votes, but also our future; they undermine the rule of law and threaten the republic itself. In a saner time, they would probably be hanged. And if it becomes apparent that the government -- the Eric Holder DOJ, judges, and others -- has become so corrupt that it will preserve its power by negating the votes of the people, then we should consider our Founding Fathers' words: "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."

Or as Alvie D. Zane says is the "Nominee for Best Comment Ever""

In reference to the 6 votes 1 man story in New York, New York. . .

"If they get 6 rounds of 1 vote each, can I have 1 vote of 30 rounds?" -radiowave