Open Text: Exact Phrase:

The American electoral process, despite its perceived 'flaws' (think Election 2000) is the standard against which all other nations are measured in terms of freedom and fairness. And it has been since the Founding Fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to the principle of government of the people, by the people and for the people.

It is America's electoral process that ensures America's freedom and prosperity. The President of the United States is the most powerful office on the face of the planet, yet the electoral process ensures a peaceful, orderly transfer of power.

The process survived even the concerted efforts of the Gore campaign to subvert it in 2000. The Gore team claimed they had won the election because they won the popular vote, despite losing the Constitutionally-mandated Electoral College vote.

They forced the Florida recount, took the nation through an interminable and pointless series of lawsuits, eventually forcing the Supreme Court to say, 'enough!' to stop the debacle from preventing the orderly transfer of power on January 20th.

It was an effort to use the courts to effect a coup d'etat, but it failed because of the openness and honest nature of our electoral process. The Democrats vowed they would spend the next four years finding ways to rig the process and unseat George Bush.

To be sure, they didn't word it that way. Instead, they claimed that it was the Bush team that pulled off a legal coup d'etat by rigging the election via the courts, and vowed to 'fix' it, but it meant the same thing.

I hate to reopen old wounds, but it is necessary to the ultimate point, so bear with me. Gore conceded the election to Bush when it was clear he lost Florida. But when he saw how close the vote actually was, he became the first presidential candidate in history to withdraw his concession.

It was Al Gore who took the election results to court. It was the Al Gore team that tried to disqualify eligible votes. It was the Gore team that began demanding a Constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College and give the election to Al Gore because he won a slightly higher percentage of the popular vote. This isn't partisanship, it is unvarnished history. I was an eyewitness, as were you.

The myth that George Bush 'stole' the election endures, even though the liberal Miami Herald conducted its own recount, concluding, "George W. Bush likely would have won the presidency outright, without weeks of indecision and political warfare."

The Associated Press, the Washington Post and the New York Times also conducted recounts. Not a single honest recounting of the votes ever once gave Al Gore the lead.

Here are a few of the headlines that reported the results the Great Media Recount, and the liberal-leaning news organizations who published them.

"Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush" (Washington Post); "Bush Still Had Votes to Win in a Recount, Study Finds" (L.A. Times); "Florida Recount Study: Bush Still Wins" (CNN.com); "Ballot Recount Supports Bush Win," (St. Petersburg Times); "Under the Two Most Likely Scenarios, Bush Won Recount" (Palm Beach Post).

Another historical 'point of order' is also appropriate here. In the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon race, Richard Nixon ALSO won a greater percentage of the popular vote than Kennedy did. But Kennedy won the Electoral College vote, Nixon conceded, and Kennedy assumed the top job.

In the 1960 election, Illinois was the pivotal state, as Florida was in 2000. More voters in some precincts of Chicago cast ballots for Kennedy than were registered to vote. Nixon's team knew it. Federal election officials knew it.

But proving it would have prevented the orderly transfer of power and forced a Constitutional crisis, and Nixon, despite his later failings, refused to put the nation through it.

Moreover, he immediately congratulated Kennedy and publicly offered his support to the new administration. The Kennedy administration took office without controversy, on January 20, 1961. Once the election was over, the nation closed ranks around its new leader.

Not so on January 20, 2001. Democratic leaders and partisan celebrities competed with each other for microphones from which they could announce the new president was 'not their president' and vowed to change the political process next time.

They have made every effort to keep their word. New balloting methods were developed, ostensibly to prevent 'dimpled chads' -- but in local elections, they either made things worse or gave rise to new election challenges based on new flaws in the new systems.

As Election 2004 approaches, the Democrats continue with their promise to unseat George Bush by any means possible, including tinkering with the process by which he defeated their guy in 2000.

Because no matter how you slice it, Al Gore DID lose. The only one tinkering with the ballots was Al Gore, and he STILL couldn't find enough votes to win Florida and its Electoral College delegates.

And, as already noted, the Electoral College trumps the popular vote by deliberate design. And Election 2000 wasn't the first time the loser of the popular vote found himself sitting in the Oval Office.

So Americans should be stunned to hear that nine members of the United States Congress, (Democrats all) signed a letter sent to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan asking the United Nations to send observers to oversee the US presidential election.

Congressional Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Democrat from Texas, wrote Annan, saying, "We are deeply concerned that the right of U.S. citizens to vote in free and fair elections is again in jeopardy." I'm NOT making this up!

Joining Johnson in this act of treason were Julia Carson of Indiana; Jerrold Nadler, Edolphus Towns, Joseph Crowley and Carolyn B. Maloney, all of New York; Raul Grijalva of Arizona, Corrine Brown of Florida, Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, Danny K. Davis of Illinois and Michael M. Honda of California.

They asked Kofi Annan to intervene by sending "international election monitors" to watch for "questionable practices and voter disenfranchisement on Election Day."

"As lawmakers, we must assure the people of America that our nation will not experience the nightmare of the 2000 presidential election," Johnson wrote. "This is the first step in making sure that history does not repeat itself."

Repeat itself in what way? A Democratic challenge to the election results, or an electoral victory for George Bush? Johnson doesn't say.

Keep in mind that it isn't Michael Moore, or Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins, or Danny Glover or Sean Penn or even Democratic partisanship that we are talking about.

We are talking about elected members of the United States House of Representatives begging the United Nations -- the UNITED NATIONS! -- to sit in judgment of America's electoral process.

"Let me get this straight," wrote Joe Mariani in GOPUSA.com. "A group of Democrats want to bring some people from countries like North Korea, Iran, Syria, China and Cuba – people that have never seen a democratic election in their lifetimes – to sit in judgment on our elections? What kind of voodoo politics is that?

Mariani went on to note; "The last time a foreign body had any direct influence over the political process of this country, the situation was corrected by a war for our freedom from British rule."

Finally, he asks, "Are these so-called Americans so willing to surrender that hard-won right of self-determination now, and to such a shamelessly scandal-ridden group of anti-American dictatorships and terrorist sympathizers?"

Thankfully, Kofi Annan turned down the traitorous request because it would violate the UN's Charter as well as the US Constitution.

Proving even the UN doesn't hate the current administration as much as the partisan Democrats in Congress do. And setting the stage, as Johnson said in the letter, for 'history to repeat itself' in Election 2004.

• No Forum Comments on this Article yet.