06 January 2009

Dems Try To Steal Minnesota

Does Minnesota suck, or is the recent debacle there a case of the Democrats endless lust for power at any cost?

For a while my Democratic friends could legitimately debate that there were no party shenanigans taking place in the Minnesota Senatorial race between Norm Coleman and that lying liar, Stuart Smalley and that the election night results were rightly overturned on Monday by the Minnesota Canvassing Board, ("the five-member panel appointed and led by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, who has been criticized for ties to the ACORN voter-registration organization the federal government is investigating for alleged vote fraud, as well as to left-wing billionaire George Soros.") But as the evidence grows it has become indisputable to anybody willing to openly investigate: the Democrats are trying to steal the state's senatorial election and their left leaning board will do nothing to stop it.

As Washington Times editor and writer Peter J. Parisi put it, “I predicted to everyone I knew that I could guaran-damn-tee that Franken would steal this thing, and it looks like I was right.”

The list of "questionable" facts grows faster than Barry Bond's head during a well-pumped season, as reported by The Wall Street Journal:
  • More than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote.
  • Canvassing Board member, State Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson, has acknowledged that "very likely there was a double counting." Yet the Richie led board insists that it lacks the authority to question local officials and it is merely adding the inflated numbers to the totals.
  • But the board has been inconsistent. Last month, Mr. Franken's campaign charged that one Hennepin County (Minneapolis) precinct had "lost" 133 votes, since the hand recount showed fewer ballots than machine votes recorded on Election Night. Though there is no proof to this missing vote charge -- officials may have accidentally run the ballots through the machine twice on Election Night -- the Canvassing Board chose to go with the Election Night total, rather than the actual number of ballots in the recount. That decision gave Mr. Franken a gain of 46 votes.
  • Meanwhile, a Ramsey County precinct ended up with 177 more ballots than there were recorded votes on Election Night. In that case, the board decided to go with the extra ballots, rather than the Election Night total, even though the county is now showing more ballots than voters in the precinct. This gave Mr. Franken a net gain of 37 votes, which means he's benefited both ways from the board's inconsistency.
  • The Franken campaign initially howled that some absentee votes had been erroneously rejected by local officials. Counties were supposed to review their absentees and create a list of those they believed were mistakenly rejected. Many Franken-leaning counties did so, submitting 1,350 ballots to include in the results. But many Coleman-leaning counties have yet to complete a re-examination. Despite this lack of uniformity, Mr. Ritchie's office nonetheless plowed through the incomplete pile of 1,350 absentees this weekend, padding Mr. Franken's edge by a further 176 votes.
  • Both campaigns have also suggested that Mr. Ritchie's office made mistakes in tabulating votes that had been challenged by either of the campaigns. And the Canvassing Board appears to have applied inconsistent standards in how it decided some of these challenged votes -- in ways that, again on net, have favored Mr. Franken.
  • Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, the man who was insisting on "counting every vote," is now insisting that the vote count stops.
There is little doubt what is happening.

The folk at Comment Cents have down a wonderful job of pulling together a number of excellent articles uncovering the double dealings by Minnesota Democrats. This is a must read for anybody interested in the truth and motivated to make a difference: MINNESOTA SENATE RACE - DIARY OF A THEFT
And make sure you check out the links, especially Newsmax's Anatomy of a Vote Grab.

And please, no comparisons to Bush whooping Gore in FLA. Every recount of the state's votes, including those performed by AP and The New York Times, verified that Dubya won the state by an even greater margin than was officially certified. Oh, and not that it matters but the U.S. Supreme Court did not give Bush the presidency, they simply ruled that the left-leaning Florida Supreme Court could not overturn the ruling of two lower courts and change election law after the election has taken place. It's common sense. Please have the courtesy to know your facts before you bring up tired nonsense.


  1. Z said...

    GREAT post, Khaki. That picture makes me want to gag, of course.. ISn't THIS the class we want in a United States Senator? Sort of like Obama giving the finger during campaigns to Hillary AND MCCain..great class, huh? SO sad.
    Imagine if anybody'd done these things just ten years ago?

    THE WSJ is SO right...I keep remembering that visit Franken suddenly made to Wash. D.C. when Coleman was up in the ballot count....he came back to Minnesota and suddenly EVER ballot was going his direction. Odd, don't you think?

    Rather like when Obama flew to be with his dying grandmother in Hawaii and BAMMO, a day or two later, the Gov of Hawaii sealed the birth certificate records. Another oddity.

    But, we have no media anymore, so we don't hear the truth or hear honest, fair discussion about these things...we're just lasso'd into silence.

  2. Khaki Elephant said...

    It sickens me. And love the point about Obama . . .nice back drop. Hey, Granny. Oops, gotta go. Got some questionable records to conceal."

    And as far as I'm concerned, the mainstream media's time is past done anyway.

  3. Anonymous said...

    Can anybody, ANYONE, give a link to which 25 precincts have more ballots than voters? Didn't think so. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your rant. Goodness knows the WSJ editorial board didn't.


  4. Anonymous said...

    And nice photoshopped picture of Franken from the Ohio GOP from 2006. You can look at this site for the real photo: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/26/franken-ohio-photo/

    Have to say, this is my first visit to your site. Not that impressed with your "truthiness" . . .

  5. Khaki Elephant said...

    Anon, what you're looking for can be found at http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/

    And there's even some additional juicy info there concerning the corruption in Franken's grab attempt.

    And while I can understand your temptation to trust FiveThirtyEight over The Wall Street Journal . . . OK, almost said that with a straight face . . . um, you might want to take a second look at your source. (assuming you can read it again, given the spelling and grammatical errors). I mean, pretending that the canvassing board chair lacks power or that the fact he is an elected democrate somehow means he doesn't have a liberal agenda? Or claiming there was equity in counting absentee ballots when they'll be back in court about it soon. Though I do love the way he somehow thinks counting "missing" ballots that appear after the initial count (most of which happen to be for Franken) is consistent with later using the initial count when the ballots don't add up (again, to Franken's favor). It seems the ol' logic train left Eric Silver's station on this one . . . and took remedial English composition with it.

    As for the pic . . . love it! And so does the LA Times (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/mccain-snl-tv.html) And given Franken's scatological/diaper fetish . . . he probably likes it too.

  6. Anonymous said...

    Blah, blah, blah

  7. Anonymous said...

    Khaki, thanks for your response. However, your link had nothing on the list of 25 precincts that supposedly had more votes than voters that I asked for. NOBODY has been able to show a source on this, except pointing to either Coleman's campaign or the WSJ editorial. The WSJ editorial does not list its sources.

    I assume you are aware that Coleman's election contest lawsuit doesn't even mention this story, aren't you?

    While you may not like Franken (which is obvious, since you resort to posting fake pictures of him), the voters of the state of Minnesota are the ones that count here. We voted, and as the incredibly transparent recount process showed, Franken won.

    If you'd take the time to look back at the process, you will see that Coleman said Franken should concede instead of letting the automatic recount occur. Then he sued to stop valid votes from being counted. When he lost that suit, he sued to change the rules that his own campaign had originally insisted upon for counting duplicate ballots. Then he sued because he wanted LEGITIMATELY rejected absentee ballots from Republican leaning precincts to be added into the count. Yet he rejected other WRONGLY rejected ballots from other areas. Now he is suing because the recount turned out differently than the preliminary numbers from election night. Well, duh. Hello, the recount specificially finds errors and allows legitimate ballots that may not have been counted for various reasons, to be counted.

    If he truly had a legitimate case, I would say go for it. However, even if he could get a ruling to open LEGITIMATELY REJECTED absentee ballots, there's no way it's going to be limited to his cherry picked precincts, which means it will open the door to a lot more Franken votes, too.

    Coleman has shown his true colors - he is out for himself and the Republican party, in an attempt to keep the state of Minnesota from having 2 senators. Here's some news for ya: SOMEBODY has to lose in an election. Coleman lost. Let's call his election contest what it is: an illegitimate attempt to keep Franken, Minnesota's newest elected senator, from being seated. Coleman, by doing the bidding of the RNC, is destroying his political future here in Minnesota.

  8. Anonymous said...

    Clarification: In my previous post, I asked "I assume you are aware that Coleman's election contest lawsuit doesn't even mention this story, aren't you?" I meant the election contest suit has no mention of the 25 precincts that supposedly have more votes than voters. If this were a legitimate issue that he could prove, don't you think it'd be in his suit?

  9. Anonymous said...

    Here's another tidbit for you: The last time Coleman was elected, there was a 9000 vote change between the original election night totals and the certified totals a couple weeks later, after the numbers had been checked and rechecked, per the process defined by law. So the claim that a 1000 vote swing out of almost 3 million votes cast is statistically impossible is another piece of hogwash. And look, I even have a source!


  10. Anonymous said...

    Wow, another hole blown in your case for the partisanship of Mark Ritchie, the Minnesota Secretary of State. As he has done throughout the process (which you would know if you paid any sort of attention to what actually went on), he has followed the law even when it goes against Franken.


    From the article linked: "Minnesota law is very clear on when a certificate of election can be issued. Neither the governor nor I may sign a certificate of election in the U.S. Senate race until all election contests have reached a final determination," Ritchie's statement read.

    Obviously, this has to be some underhanded scheme hatched by George Soros and ACORN, though . . .