By:
Rev. Jesse Jackson, December 11, 2000
after attending the U.S. Supreme Court
Hearing for the case, Bush v. Gore, to
stop the 2000 Presidential Election
vot emanual hand re-count of specially
selected ballots in specially selected
Florida Counties by Democrat officials
using no standards for determining what
counts as a vote.
Sources:
Human Events Magazine Reporters
Tim Carney and Jordan Gehrke,
http://www.HumanEvents.org/
http://www.HumanEvents.org/articles/
special/jackson.html
Drudge Report Web Site,
http://www.DrudgeReport.com/
Comments:
It appears that Jackson is using
threats of widespread violence if the
Supreme Court does not rule to help
the Democrat Party steal the election
from Republican George W. Bush.
Democrat Front Man Al Sharpton Quotes
(similar to Jesse Jackson, he deserves a section all to himself . . . more to come):
“George Bush was selected by the judges, not elected by the people!”
By:
Al Sharpton, black leftist Democrat
"reverand", while continuing his
campaign to steal the election, and
now the legitimacy of the election,
from Republican George W. Bush and
the American people.
Source:
KABC AM 790 radio news
broadcast sound recording of Al
Sharpton, Tuesday, January 2, 2000,
11:01 AM, in the Los Angeles area.
“While this Court must be ever mindful of the Legislature’s plenary power to appoint presidential electors [under Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution], I am more concerned that the majority is departing from the essential requirements of the law by providing a remedy which is impossible to achieve and which will ultimately lead to chaos. . . .
“. . . Even if by some miracle a portion of the statewide recount is completed by December 12, a partial recount is not acceptable. The uncertainty of the outcome of this election will be greater under the remedy afforded by the majority than the uncertainty that now exists.”
- Florida State Supreme Court Justice
Harding, joined by Justice Shaw,
in a dissenting opinion on
Friday, December 8, 2000
Note the reference to the federal
statutory deadline for completing
the appointment of presidential electors
Chief Justice Wells’s dissent is the most important and compelling. He wrote, in part:
“. . . [T]he majority’s decision cannot withstand the scrutiny which will certainly immediately follow under the United States Constitution.
“Importantly to me, I have a deep and abiding concern that the prolonging of judicial process in this counting contest propels this country and this state into an unprecedented and unnecessary constitutional crisis. I have to conclude that there is a real and present likelihood that this constitutional crisis will do substantial damage to our country, our state, and to this Court as an institution.
“. . . Judicial restraint in respect to elections is absolutely necessary because the health of our democracy depends on elections being decided by voters — not by judges. We must have the self-discipline not to be embroiled in political contests whenever a judicial majority subjectively concludes to do so because the majority perceives it is ‘the right thing to do.’ Elections involve the other branches of government. A lack of self-discipline in being involved in elections, especially by a court of last resort, always has the potential of leading to a crisis with the other branches of government and raises serious separation-of-powers concerns.”
- Florida State Supreme Court
Chief Justice Wells,
in a dissenting opinion on
Friday, December 8, 2000
Justice Wells, a liberal Democrat
himself, recognizes that his
colleagues are doing great harm
to the U.S. Constitution and the
rule of law.
“. . . any right to contest an election must be construed to grant only those rights that are explicitly set forth by the Legislature.”
- Florida State Supreme Court
Chief Justice Wells,
in a dissenting opinion on
Friday, December 8, 2000
In support of his argument,
he cited McPherson v. Flynn,
the same decision relied on by
the unanimous justices of the
U.S. Supreme Court when they
vacated the Florida supreme court’s
first rewriting of the legislature’s
election laws.
“Each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress . . .”
- Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of
the U.S. Constitution, granting plenary
authority to appoint electors
Source:
The Gang of Four
A ruling that is not only unconstitutional, but thoroughly dishonest.
By Mark R. Levin, president of Landmark Legal Foundation
National Review web site, http://www.nationalreview.com/, 12/09/00 8:45 a.m.
After reviewing the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court, we find “that there is considerable uncertainty as to the precise grounds for the decision.”
. . .
Per Curiam
Specifically, we are unclear as to the extent to which the Florida Supreme Court saw the Florida Constitution as circumscribing the legislature’ s authority under Art. II, §1, cl. 2. We are also unclear as to the consideration the Florida Supreme Court accorded to 3 U. S. C. §5. The
judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
- SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2000)
Per Curiam
No. 00–836
GEORGE W. BUSH, PETITIONER v. PALM BEACH
COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
[December 4, 2000]
SEMINOLE COUNTY LAWSUIT COURT RULING EXCERPTS
The following are excerpts from the Florida Circuit Court ruling in a Democrat lawsuit to invalidate and not count thousands of absentee ballots cast by Republican registered voters, and to invalidate the entire election in Seminole County. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit lawsuit were attempting to change the outcome of the very close 2000 U.S. Presidential Election by exploiting a nonsubstantive technical procedural violation of Florida law.
Seminole County yielded 75,293 for George W. Bush and 58,888 votes for Al Gore in the first machine count, and 75,677 votes for Bush and 59,174 votes for Gore in the second machine count. Thus, depriving all Seminole County voters of their right to have their legal and legitimate votes counted would have deprived Bush of a 16,405 votes relative to Gore based on the first machine count, and 16,503 votes relative to Gore based on the second machine count. This would have eliminated Bush’s lead and giving Gore a substantial lead, taking the Presidential Election victory from Bush and giving it to Gore.
A similar Democrat lawsuit was filed in Martin County, Florida.
Al Gore, runningmate Joe Lieberman, and the Democrat Party officials all sanctioned these lawsuits and never publicly repudiated or opposed these lawsuits which were obvious attempts to disenfranchise more than 100,000 Florida voters because the majority of them voted for Bush.
FINAL ORDER
“THIS CAUSE came before the court upon the bench trial held December 6 and 7, 2000. This case is a contest of election pursuant to Section 102.168, Florida Statutes. The purpose of a contest of election is to establish specific legal grounds upon which to set aside the results of an election. Significantly, this decision in this case may not be rendered for the purpose of sending a message to the community, a political party or the Seminole County Supervisor of Elections or the Seminole County Canvassing Board. This court decides this case, like any other lawsuit, under the fundamental principles of judicial restraint and judicial independence, and the ruling is necessarily based on existing statutory and case law and on the facts as they were developed during the trial of this matter. Although the court is given authority to fashion relief for proven and substantial violations of absentee voter laws, this court is without authority or jurisdiction to manufacture a solution to a pressing political or social predicament. Where ascertainable, this court must give effect to the will of the people who voiced their political choices by casting their votes on November 7, 2000.”
. . .
“The very purpose of election laws is to obtain a correct expression of the intent of the voters, without imposing unnecessary and unreasonable restraints on that right.”
. . .
“This contest of the November 7, 2000, presidential election was filed pursuant to Section 102.168, Florida Statutes. The plaintiffs allege that irregularities in thousands of requests for absentee ballots should invalidate the subsequently cast absentee ballots, and that if the ballots cast by those whose requests were not in strict compliance with the absentee voter laws, the entire election in Seminole County should be invalidated.”
. . .
“The parties stipulate that prior to the November 7, 2000 general election, both the Florida Republican Party and the Florida Democratic Party prepared and mailed pre-printed absentee ballot request forms to registered voters of their respective parties. There is no allegation by any party that this practice is prohibited by law or policy. The absentee request forms mailed out by the Democratic form correctly included a space for the person making the request to fill in his or her voter registration identification number. In some cases, the number was even pre-printed on the request form. In contrast, the Republican form did not include either the requestor’s voter registration identification number, or a space for the requestor to put the number. The Republican form did not instruct the recipients that their voter registration identification number was needed or required.”
. . .
“There is no evidence that the Democratic Party or any other political party requested to add voter registration identification numbers. In fact, the Democratic Party did not need to make such a request, because their forms were correct and included either the pre-printed identification number or instructions that the voter Identification number was required.
“The first issue for this court to decide is whether the absentee voting laws require strict compliance with all its provisions, or whether substantial compliance is sufficient to give validity to the ballots. Did the addition of voter registration identification numbers on the request forms after they were submitted to the Supervisor constitute such an irregularity that the ballots cast thereafter should be invalidated, or did the addition of that information constitute a violation of the absentee voter election laws that did not impugn or compromise the integrity of the ballots cast or ultimately the election itself?”
. . .
“Although the statute clearly sets forth what must be disclosed by the person requesting the absentee ballot, there is no statutory directive regarding the treatment of absentee ballot requests which do not contain all of the information required by Section 101.62(1)(b), Florida Statutes.”
. . .
“Unless a statutory provision also specifically states that the lack of information voids the ballot, the lack of the information does not automatically void the ballot.”
. . .
“It cannot be said that the lack of a voter registration identification number on an absentee ballot request is calculated to effect the integrity of the request itself or the subsequent ballot or the election, when substantial other identifying information has been included on the request.”
. . .
“There is no invalidating directive for failure to include the voter registration identification number on a request for an absentee ballot.”
. . .
“Because the requests for absentee ballots could have been considered valid even without the identification numbers, the violation of Section 101.62 is not a substantial non-compliance with elections law and does not compromise the integrity of the ballots cast or the integrity of the election.”
. . .
“The second issue for the court’s determination is whether the Supervisor of Elections treated the representatives of the Florida Republican Party differently than she treated representatives of other political parties to the extent that the integrity of the ballots or election was compromised. The plaintiffs allege that the Supervisor of Elections “treated the interests of non-Republican voters differently from those of Republican voters” because she informed the public that she would strictly enforce the requirements of Section 101.62, Florida Statutes, including the disclosure of the voter identification number, yet she honored the request of a Republican representative to obtain access to the incomplete request forms and add the voter identification numbers and did not notify the Democratic Party or any other group of this development. The plaintiffs argued at trial that this failure to notify others and invite others to take the same actions constituted illegal disparate treatment. However, the proof offered at trial failed to show that she treated other political parties differently than she treated the Republican party. There was no showing of an violation of 104.0515, Florida Statutes, equal protection under the law under Article I, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution, or any other applicable law. Unlike the Republican mail-out, the Democratic mail-out did not suffer from the general omission of the voter identification numbers. Therefore, there was no need for the Democrats to request access to the request forms to correct them, and in fact, there was no evidence that such a request was made by the Democratic party or any other political subdivision. Consequently, there was no evidence that the request of any representative, including any Democrat, was denied by the Supervisor. Thus, there as no adequate showing that there was disparate treatment of Republicans as opposed to any other individuals or groups with regard to the ballot request forms.”
. . .
“There was no allegation or evidence that any of the absentee votes counted were not ‘cast by qualified, registered voters who were entitled to vote absentee and who did so in a proper manner.’ . . . The effect the irregularities complained of could have had on the election was the prevention of voting by certain requestors for absentee ballots whose requests lacked the voter identification number and who were unwilling or unable to go to their precinct to cast their vote on election day. There was no evidence that any absentee ballot requests were excluded or denied solely because they lacked the required voter registration number.”
. . .
“The evidence presented in this case does not support a finding of fraud, gross negligence, or intentional wrongdoing in connection with any absentee ballots.”
. . .
“Likewise, the evidence in this case did not show a ‘substantial noncompliance with the election statutes.’ . . . If the court finds ‘substantial compliance with the absentee voting laws,’ the ballots cast are not void or illegal. . . . there was no evidence that the request for ballots or the ballots themselves were tainted or that the will of the people who voted absentee was thwarted by the involvement of third parties in adding to the ballot request forms. The will and intent of the voters could be clearly determined by the ballots cast, and there is no evidence of substantial noncompliance with the elections laws sufficient to invalidate the ballots cast.
“Finally, the court finds that the irregularities complained of, specifically the filling in of voter identification numbers on absentee ballot request forms after they had been returned to the Supervisor of Elections’ office, did not adversely affect the sanctity of the absentee ballots subsequently cast. While the Supervisor of Elections of Seminole County exercised faulty judgement in first rejecting completely the requests in question, and compounded the problem by allowing third parties to correct the omissions on the forms, no remedy against her is available in this election contest under Section 102.168, Florida Statutes. Faulty judgement is not illegal unless the Legislature declares it so. Oversight of elections officials rests with the Executive branch rather than the courts.
“For all the forgoing reasons, the court finds that the certified election in Seminole County was the result of the fair expression of the will of the people of Seminole County. Because the intent of the voters in Seminole County is ascertainable, this court must and does give effect to the will of the people who voted their political choices by casting their votes on November 7, 2000.
“Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to no relief.
“DONE AND ORDERED this 8 day of December, 2000.”
NIKKI ANN CLARK
Circuit Judge
- Ruling by Circuit Judge Nikki Ann Clark
Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit
in and for Leon County, Florida
December 8, 2000
Case No: CV-00-2816
Harry Jacobs, et al., Plaintiffs, vs.
The Seminole County Canvassing Board, et al.,
Defendants
MARTIN COUNTY LAWSUIT COURT RULING EXCERPTS
The following are excerpts from the Florida Circuit Court ruling in a Democrat lawsuit to invalidate and not count thousands of absentee ballots cast by Republican registered voters, and to invalidate the entire election in Martin County. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit lawsuit were attempting to change the outcome of the very close 2000 U.S. Presidential Election by exploiting a nonsubstantive technical procedural violation of Florida law.
Martin County yielded 33,864 for George W. Bush and 26,619 votes for Al Gore in the first machine count, and 33,970 votes for Bush and 26,620 votes for Gore in the second machine count. Thus, depriving all Seminole County voters of their right to have their legal and legitimate votes counted would have deprived Bush of a 7,245 votes relative to Gore based on the first machine count, and 7,350 votes relative to Gore based on the second machine count. This would have eliminated Bush’s lead and giving Gore a substantial lead, taking the Presidential Election victory from Bush and giving it to Gore.
A similar Democrat lawsuit was filed in Seminole County, Florida.
Al Gore, runningmate Joe Lieberman, and the Democrat Party officials all sanctioned these lawsuits and never publicly repudiated or opposed these lawsuits which were obvious attempts to disenfranchise more than 100,000 Florida voters because the majority of them voted for their oppoent, George Bush.
FINAL JUDGEMENT FOR DEFENDANTS
“This case is before me after non jury trial on the Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Section 102.168, Florida Statutes, contesting the results of the recent election determining the electoral votes for president and vice-president of the United States. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek a Judgement invalidating all, or at least a portion of, the absentee ballots cast in Martin County.”
. . .
“The essential facts are as follows: Both the Florida Republican Party and the Florida Democratic Party disseminated pre-printed absentee ballot request forms to registered voters in Martin County prior to the election. The Supervisor of Elections received a number of Republican request forms which had missing or incorrect voter identification numbers on them. There was no similar problem with the Democratic request forms received.”
. . .
“It is for the Legislature, however, the Court said, to determine what sanctions should apply to election officials who do not follow the law, and that the sanction should not be one that would frustrate the will of the voters if the violation of the law is unintentional wrongdoing.”
. . .
“In the present case the persons who signed the request forms in question were duly qualified and registered voters in Martin County. There is no evidence of fraud or other irregularities in the actual casting of the ballots, or the counting of the ballots. The procedure may have provided an opportunity for fraud, but none has been shown. The failure to comply with the statutory procedure was not intentional wrongdoing, but rather was the result of an erroneous understanding of the statutory requirements.
“There is also no basis in the evidence to conclude that the irregularities affected the vote. The Democratic Party, like the Republican Party also disseminated pre-printed absentee ballot request forms to registered Democrats. The difference is, their printed forms did not have the errors that the Republicans did.
. . .
“I also find, however, from the evidence that there was, in fact, no fraud nor other intentional misconduct, and that the noncompliance with applicable statutory procedures did not compromise the integrity of the election or the sanctity of the ballot.”
. . .
“Without question there were irregularities relative to the requests for absentee ballots. The evidence shows, however, that despite these irregularities, the sanctity of the ballot and the integrity of the election were not affected. The election in Martin County was a full and fair expression of the will of the people.”
- Ruling by Circuit Judge Terry P. Lewis
Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida
December 8, 2000
Case No: 00-2850
Ronald Taylor and John and Jane Does I-NNN,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
The Martin County Canvassing Board,
Peggy S. Robbins,
the Honorable Stewart Hershey,
Marshall Wilcox,
the Florida Republican Party,
Tom Hauck,
George W. Bush, Richard Cheney,
the State of Florida Election Canvassing
Commission and Katherine Harris,
Defendants
vs.
John Trasher, Richard J. Kosmoski;
Rose Carmel Kosmoski; Ann F. Ford;
Horace S. Ford, Jur.; William F. Zier;
Katharin P. Zier; Virginia White;
Joanne D. Payson and Diane Joffe,
Defendant-Intervenors.
“If you torture these ballots long enough, they will eventually confess.”- former Wyoming Senator Simpson
“Governor Bush and Secretary Cheney had more votes on Election Night. They had more votes after the automatic recount. They had more votes in the election returns submitted by all of the counties on Nov. 14, following additional recounts. They had more votes after the overseas absentee ballots were counted. They had more votes under the standards first applied in selective manual recounts in predominantly Democratic counties by Democratic election boards that were oftentimes divining the intentions of the voters. And now, once again, they have more votes, even after the application of a very loose standard for manual recounts of dimpled ballots.”
- James Baker, representing George W. Bush,
November 26, 2000
“The Florida Supreme Court provided 12 additional days for these manual recounts, almost tripling the statutory time period mandated by Florida’s legislature.”
- James Baker, representing George W. Bush,
November 26, 2000
“The Florida State Elections Commission has certified Governor Bush as the winner of the presidential election here in Florida. Governor Bush and Secretary Cheney have won this election under rules established by both Florida statutes and Florida’s judiciary, including both procedures in place before the election and different ones in place after the election.”
- James Baker, representing George W. Bush,
November 26, 2000
“Now the Gore campaign lawyers want to shift from recounts to contesting the election outcome. And they propose to do this notwithstanding the fact that America has never had a presidential election decided by an election contest in court. And they propose to do this notwithstanding the fact that there also has never even been a statewide election contested in court in the state of Florida. Make no mistake, this approach is extraordinary. It cannot be justified simply as business as usual.”
- James Baker, representing George W. Bush,
November 26, 2000
“On Nov. 15, when Vice President Gore was stating his case for a manual recount, he told the nation that if its results were added, ‘I will abide by the result. I will take no legal action to contest the result.’ Sen. Lieberman said four days later that if the Florida Supreme Court allowed a hand count to go forward, ‘It is much more likely that we will accept the results as the last word.’”
- James Baker, representing George W. Bush,
November 26, 2000
“Ladies and gentlemen, at some point — at some point — there must be closure. At some point, the law must prevail and the lawyers must go home. We have reached that point.”
- James Baker, representing George W. Bush,
November 26, 2000
“I don’t believe that the people of America want this national election turned over to lawyers and court contests. I can certainly understand the pain and the frustration of losing an election so very, very narrowly, but it is time to honor the will of the people. It is time to let the orderly process of transitioning go forward.”
- James Baker, representing George W. Bush,
November 26, 2000
“No one underestimates the challenge of uniting the country to face the issues that await the next president and the next Congress. For the healing and uniting and governing to begin, this election must be brought to a conclusion.”
- James Baker, representing George W. Bush,
November 26, 2000
“An election is a snapshot of a twelve hour period in time, and there is no way to reproduce that snapshot once everyone knows the election results.”- Reform Party Presidential Candidate
Pat Buchanan, November 2000,
in response to claims by Democrat voters
in Florida’s Palm Beach County that they
were confused by the use of a “Butterfly”
ballot and may have accidentally voted for
him instead of Democrat candidate Al Gore
in the 2000 Presidential Election.
These Democrats demanded that the entire
county be allowed to vote again, which would
have allowed Democrat and Green Party voters
to switch there votes from Green candidate
Ralph Nader to Al Gore, thereby effectively
stealing this very close election from
Republican George W. Bush and giving it to
Al Gore.
“You mean to tell me that those old ladies in Palm Beach can play 15 bingo cards simultaneously . . . but can’t punch a ballot hole!”
- unknown
Quotations from the Media
“You cannot say of the ballot, just because nobody voted for Bush or Gore, that it’s really a secret Gore vote that didn’t get counted . . .”
- Peggy Noonan on Fox News Channel’s
“Hannity and Colmes”, November 27, 2000
“They’re talking about 26,000 people that they said their votes didn’t count. There are 35,000 other people in Florida who’s votes were not counted that lie in George Bush country. . .Many, many more are Bush votes and they don’t say a word about that.”
- Pat Caddell, November 27, 2000
Self-described liberal Democrat
on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris
Matthews”
Don Imus and Howard Fineman on MSNBC’s “Imus in the Morning,” November 28, 2000:
Imus: “What if Gore had won, and Bush. . .I mean, what if the roles were reversed, how would, I wouldn’t want to include you in this, but how would the liberal weenies of the news media be treating all this if the roles were reversed.”
Fineman: “Oh my God, . . .you kidding?! That George Bush was a cry baby, that he was the spoiled son of a failed President. You know, you can just here it. The personal attacks on Bush would be just absolutely vicious.”
James Baker, representing George W. Bush
Comments After Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris
Certified Bush as the Winner
This election must be brought to a conclusion.
Sunday, November 26, 2000
Text of comments from James Baker, former secretary of state and adviser to Texas Gov. George W. Bush, following Florida’s vote certification:
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
Shortly after I arrived here some 19 days ago, I said in this very room that the election process in Florida and the country as a whole needed to conclude with fairness and with finality.
I suggested that everyone step back and pause and think about what was at stake. I warned that there might be no reasonable end to the process of counts and challenges and contests if it slipped away from us. So here is the account of the past three weeks.
Governor Bush and Secretary Cheney had more votes on Election Night. They had more votes after the automatic recount.
They had more votes in the election returns submitted by all of the counties on Nov. 14, following additional recounts.
They had more votes after the overseas absentee ballots were counted.
They had more votes under the standards first applied in selective manual recounts in predominantly Democratic counties by Democratic election boards that were oftentimes divining the intentions of the voters.
And now, once again, they have more votes, even after the application of a very loose standard for manual recounts of dimpled ballots.
The Florida Supreme Court provided 12 additional days for these manual recounts, almost tripling the statutory time period mandated by Florida’s legislature.
So here’s where we stand tonight. The Florida State Elections Commission has certified Governor Bush as the winner of the presidential election here in Florida. Governor Bush and Secretary Cheney have won this election under rules established by both Florida statutes and Florida’s judiciary, including both procedures in place before the election and different ones in place after the election.
Now the Gore campaign lawyers want to shift from recounts to contesting the election outcome. And they propose to do this notwithstanding the fact that America has never had a presidential election decided by an election contest in court. And they propose to do this notwithstanding the fact that there also has never even been a statewide election contested in court in the state of Florida. Make no mistake, this approach is extraordinary. It cannot be justified simply as business as usual.
I hope that the arguments of the Gore campaign’s lawyers are not the last word of guidance from the vice president and the Democratic Party. I have heard other views.
On Nov. 15, when Vice President Gore was stating his case for a manual recount, he told the nation that if its results were added, “I will abide by the result. I will take no legal action to contest the result.”
Sen. Lieberman said four days later that if the Florida Supreme Court allowed a hand count to go forward, “It is much more likely that we will accept the results as the last word.”
Ladies and gentlemen, at some point — at some point — there must be closure. At some point, the law must prevail and the lawyers must go home. We have reached that point.
Now, after almost three weeks of turmoil, we as a country have another opportunity to step back, to pause, and to think about what’s at stake.
I don’t believe that the people of America want this national election turned over to lawyers and court contests. I can certainly understand the pain and the frustration of losing an election so very, very narrowly, but it is time to honor the will of the people. It is time to let the orderly process of transitioning go forward.
No one underestimates the challenge of uniting the country to face the issues that await the next president and the next Congress. For the healing and uniting and governing to begin, this election must be brought to a conclusion.
- James Baker, representing George W. Bush,
November 26, 2000
The following statements were made by a clearly annoyed Senator Joseph Lieberman, before cameras, after Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris certified George W. Bush as the winning candidate Sunday afternoon, November 26, 2000:“thousands of hours of work by hundreds of citizens of Florida, Republicans and Democrats and independents alike are being ignored. What is at issue here is nothing less than every American’s simple, sacred right to vote.”
“How can we teach our children that every vote counts if we are not willing to make a good-faith effort to count every vote?”
“Because of our belief in the importance of these fundamental American principles, Vice President Gore and I have no choice but to contest these actions, as provided under Florida law and in accord with the decision of the Florida Supreme Court.”
“It is in our nation’s interest that the winner in Florida is truly the person got the most votes.”
“As we have said all along, we do not know who will prevail, after a full and fair count of every legally cast ballot. But the integrity our self-government is too important to cast into doubt because votes that have been counted, or others that have not yet been counted and clearly should be, have unjustifiably been cast aside. That is why we seek the most complete and accurate count possible.”
“We have an obligation, not just to the 50 million Americans who cast their votes for Vice President Gore and me, but to every American who voted in this election. They all deserve a fair and just outcome that respects their participation and does not diminish the value of their votes.”
“And we have an obligation to uphold the Constitution we are sworn to uphold. The idea of ‘one person, one vote’ is central to our system of government and must never be compromised.”
- Senator Joseph Lieberman,
November 26, 2000,
after Florida Secretary of State
Katherine Harris certified George W.
Bush as the winning candidate
“I sure pulled the wool over the voters’ eyes this time!”- Former California Democrat Party
political boss and Assembly Speaker
Willie Brown, boasting to television
news crews on election night, after
he defeated a California Redistricting
Reform Initiative with a massive TV
false advertising campaign
“In Gerrymandered election districts, the voters don’t choose their politicians – the politicians choose their voters!”
- Unknown
“No government is better than our government!”
- A Patriotic Anarchist
“The United States has cultural diversity because of its greatness, rather than deriving its greatness from its cultural diversity. This greatness is the result of the founding principles of individual freedom, limited government, and opportunity for prosperity derived through this freedom, including respect for property rights, capitalism, and free enterprise. Throughout our history immigrants have risked their lives and voted with their feet to escape to the U.S. from countries throughout the world. They came here seeking the stability, safety, and opportunity provided by the American economic and government system which is unavailable under Socialist and Communist dictatorships. The Socialists and Communists in our society, including those in the Democratic Party, have misunderstood this correlation and reversed the cause and effect relationship between greatness and cultural diversity.”
- Michael D. Robbins
Quotes on Political Correctness:“We forbid any course which teaches that we restrict freedom of speech!”
- Reason given to Bolling Green State
University Professor Richard A. Zeller
for not allowing him to teach a course
on political correctness and the
chilling affect feminism and other
“liberal” political movements have
created on free speech.
Professor Zeller resigned his position
with BGSU due to the cancellation of his
class and due to the hostile “liberal”
academic environment at BGSU.
The BGSU web site is http://www.BGSU.edu/.
“We have probed the earth, excavated it, burned it, ripped things from it, buried things in it . . . . That does not fit my definition of a good tenant. If we were here on a month-to-month basis, we would have been evicted long ago.”- Former California Supreme Court
Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird,
liberal judicial activist, and first
woman Chief Justice of California.
She was appointed Chief Justice by
liberal Democrat Governor Jerry Brown
in 1977, and she was removed with two
other liberal justices by California
voters in 1986.
Source: “The Book of Quotes”
by Barbara Rowes, 1979.
“It’s always the minorities who aren’t a part of the mainstream who define what the limits . . . of the majority are going to be.”
- Former California Supreme Court
Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird,
liberal judicial activist, and first
woman Chief Justice of California.
She was appointed Chief Justice by
liberal Democrat Governor Jerry Brown
in 1977, and she was removed with two
other liberal justices by California
voters in 1986.
Source: The Nation magazine,
January 18, 1986.
The Nation is a far left-wing
political magazine.
Bill Clinton Quotes (he deserves a section all to himself . . . more to come):“Unlike [the Republicans], I have apologized to the American people for what I did wrong . . . They never apologized to the country for impeachment. They never apologized for all the things they’ve done.”
- Bill Clinton,
The Esquire magazine interview,
November 14, 2000
Quotes from various political hacks:“Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Cool!”
- Paul Bagala, enthusiastically commenting
on President Bill Clinton’s ability
to abuse Executive Orders, issuing
them like King’s Decrees to bypass
the elected Congress and effectively
legislate from the White House, due to
the failure of the Democrats in Congress
to jealously guard and protect the
Constitutional powers of the legislative
branch of government from usurpations
from the executive branch (or, for that
matter, from liberal judicial activist
judges in the judicial branch).
The founders designed our form of
government to create a balance of power
between competing branches of government
that were expected to have at least
enough integrity to preserve this balance.
Paul Bagala is a liberal partisan Democrat
who served on Bill Clinton’s staff. He
wrote the political hit-piece book against
George W. Bush, titled, “Is Our Children
Learning?” This book was published
September 1, 2000, just in time to serve
as a Democrat campaign piece in the 2000
Presidential Election.
Paul Bagala also stated publicly that
the areas of the U.S. map that were
colored red, representing the majority
of counties won by George W. Bush, are
the areas where a homosexual was murdered,
and a black man was dragged to death, with
the implication that voters who voted for
Bush are evil murderers. It is interesting
to note that the counties won by Democrat
Al Gore have a significantly higher per
capita murder rate than the counties won
by Republican George W. Bush.
Al Gore Quotes (he deserves a section all to himself . . . more to come):
“I think ‘undocumented immigrant’ is a lot better term than ‘illegal alien’.”
- Democrat Vice President and 2000
presidential candidate Al Gore
Rosie O’Donnell (she deserves a section all to herself . . . more to come):“Across America, mothers and others giving birth to a movement”
- Rosie O’Donnell, speaking at the
“Million” Mom March (actually, about
100,000 liberals of all genders).
Note that Rosie O’Donnell is another
wealthy liberal Hollywood celebrity who
has misused her television show and her
celebrity status to lobby for a firearm
ban and confiscation while she had a
personal body guard armed with a firearm
for her own protection.
“It is obvious that Rosie O’Donnell has failed to read any of the last twenty years of scientific criminological research, which shows that gun control increases violent crime and never reduces crime, costing thousands of lives each year, and endangering everyone including those who choose not to own firearms. In spite of her incompetence and reckless disregard for public safety, Rosie O’Donnell knows that it is common sense that one is safer when protected with a firearm. While she has lobbied frantically to disarm and endanger everyone else, she has been protected by a private body guard armed with a handgun.”
- Michael D. Robbins
First Posted:
Last Updated: Friday, January 5, 2001 – 11:30 p.m. Pacific Time
©2000, 2001 FraudFactor™, FraudFactor.com and its owner. All rights reserved. Copyright/Permissions page.
