Illegal immigrants - the Dem key to winning elections

The San Diego Union-Tribune is reporting that Francine Busby, the Democratic candidate for the 50th Congressional District seems to have had a Freudian Slip. Here is the description of what happened:

Busby said she was invited to the forum at the Jocelyn Senior Center in Escondido by the leader of a local soccer league. Many of the 50 or so people there were Spanish speakers. Toward the end, a man in the audience asked in Spanish: “I want to help, but I don't have papers.”

It was translated and Busby replied: “Everybody can help, yeah, absolutely, you can all help. You don't need papers for voting, you don't need to be a registered voter to help.”

You don't need papers for voting. So in one moment of brutal honesty, Busby reveals to all what I have stated several times: one of the largest dangers of failing to secure our border is an increase in voter fraud. The Democrats have worked very hard over the years to create a voting environment where voting fraud can fester:

1) The motor voter law will automatically generate a voter registration when applying for drivers licenses
2) Several states allowing illegals to obtain drivers licenses
3) Fighting a photo-id voting requirement tooth and nail
4) A relaxed absentee voting environment where it is quite frequent to see dead or comatose people voting via absentee ballot
5) A resistance to a centralized voting registration database to prevent voting in more than one location; even different states
6) A resistance to giving election observers enough leeway to identify voter fraud

I was asked by a co-worker last election if I was going to register in Illinois and Florida in order to vote. When I responded that this was illegal, his response was very casual that he knew somebody that is doing that so he could vote absentee in one place and in person in the other. He also gave me the impression that there were a number of people doing this. So there is a considerable amount of voting fraud going on. All the while, the Dems throw up a huge smoke screen pitching and moaning about the Diebold Voting machines. On a liberal blog that I frequent, twice a woman named "Cathy" posted comments about the need for legal action to prevent fraud on the Diebold voting machines. Now I am all for that, plus I commented that we need to address voter fraud as a whole by addressing my points 1-5 I listed above. Cathy had no comment in response both times. She did comment to others in the same thread, just not me. No Dems do not want to prevent voter fraud if they think it will help them.

Most of the voter fraud mentioned above does not involve illegals directly. However, the statement by Busby reveals the another section of the soft underbelly of the armored voting system. Just think of the mindset of liberals. A liberal activist judge is approached with a case. He/She looks at the law (maybe) and then looks at the way he/she thinks things should be. If they are in conflict, what does he/she do? Creates law out of whole cloth and makes a judgement based on how he/she thinks things should be. Under this same mindset, there are enough liberal citizens including many who have obtained citizenship coming from Mexico who think it would be a great thing if illegals could vote.

The 50th district in California is usually occupied by a Republican. However, this year is special since it is the open seat by the now jailbird Randy "Duke" Cunningham who has disgraced himself and cast a bad light on the GOP in general (even though we see corruption knows no party lines). The Dems have a much better chance of winning this seat. If you add some votes by enough illegal immigrants it may be enough to turn the tide. So Busby says "You don't need papers for voting". In an environment where the mindset of "what I think to be right is above what the law says" how difficult do you think it will be to get away with having many illegal immigrants voting?

Conveniently, she says right after that "you don't need to be a registered voter to help". When confronted with her first statement she claims to have slipped on the first statement and corrected herself on the second. Sorry, but that does not fly. When you make a statement that you realize could be interpreted as breaking the law, before your correction you are going to emphasize the correction. You could say "I stated that wrong, what I mean is...". You are not going to just state another sentence without a breath and convince anybody that was a mistake.

When an environment of voter fraud is encouraged, we become no better than countries like Venezuela, Cuba or even Iraq where Saddam Hussein "received 100% of the votes". To me the will of the people voting within the law is what sets us apart. Regardless of how I like the outcome, if the will of the people is accurately and legally refelcted at the polls I will submit to it rather than look for ways to cheat the system to go my way. It is sad that fewer and fewer people are thinking this way. In a "me, me, me" society the end justifies the means. In Busby's case, I reject both her "means" as well as her "end". The "means" she revealed in her statement is illegal and the "end" she supports needs to be defeated at the ballot box.