Please note that these editorial articles do not necessarily reflect the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are the personal opinions of the author and he is alone responsible for them. by W. John Walsh

11/10/00

The purpose of this article is discuss my views on the recently contested American Presidential election. To be concise and clear, I believe the Unites States of America, the undisputed leader of the free world, is in serious danger of losing its democracy. To me, it seems clear that a group of evil, conspiring men has taken over the Republican party and is likely to soon seize control of the country. While the tone of this article may seem overly dramatic to some, let's call the current events what they really are: a coup.

Before I start discussing specifics, I would like to make a couple of disclaimers. My problem with what is happening in the American Presidential election is not really about who will become President. When it comes to policy, I am far closer to George W. Bush than I am to Al Gore. For example, Gore supports abortion rights, while Bush opposes them. I oppose abortion in all cases, with no exceptions. I believe that since Christ gave his life for us, any woman not prepared to give her life for her child is not fit for the Kingdom of God. Gore opposes school choice (i.e., vouchers), while Bush supports it. I will be home schooling my children and want to spend my tax dollars in my own home and not down the street at the public schools which I will never use. Also, let me make it clear that my issue is not that Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral college. Whether you espouse the election system mandated by our constitution or not, it is clear that the electoral college is the present legal way we do things.

I am concerned with the process, not the platforms or positions. I am a great believer in democracy and the right of the citizens of a country to choose their own leaders. What the leader will do is far less important than whether the leader has been legitimately chosen by the people. Even though I may agree with Bush on some positions, I cannot accept him as the leader of this nation unless he actually received the most votes. After examining the evidence and studying the issues, I have no doubt that Gore won the electoral college as well as the popular vote.

To put it simply: it all comes down to Florida. Did more people vote for Gore in Florida or did more people vote for Bush? I don't mean did more people intend to vote for Gore. I mean out of the people who actually showed up on election day and voted, who got the most votes? This is how we judge the winner of elections in America. At least, this is how we are supposed to declare winners.

I think it is indisputable that Al Gore had more actual votes cast for him in Florida. The only issue is whether "voting irregularities" have voided (at least for the moment) those votes and therefore deprived American citizens of their right to elect leaders of their own choice. It's important to note that at no time has anyone from the Republican side actually claimed that any substantial portion of the disputed ballots were cast for Bush. Their position is relatively simple: they know the votes were cast for Gore (at least the vast majority of them), they just want to find some way to legally exclude them from the totals. That someone would take this position is absolutely amazing to me.

That American citizens did not have their votes properly recorded and were therefore deprived of their constitutional right is not the only thing that bothers me. In addition to trying to disqualify the votes of American citizens who voted for other candidates, Bush actively tried to intimidate people from voting. His supporters called people and gave them false information about what was required to vote to discourage them from going to the polls. That these calls were made is indisputable. Can we prove that Bush was responsible for them? Perhaps we may never tie him personally to these actions from a legal point of view, but he can be directly tied from a moral perspective.

I believe sins of omission bring one into the collective guilt of those performing evil acts. For example, after World War II, there were many German citizens who claimed they had no knowledge of the death camps or what happened there. Others claimed they knew what happened, but they could not stop it or do anything about it, so they just continued on with their lives. In my view, God morally obligates us to speak out against evil. By not speaking out, those citizens took upon themselves the collective guilt. Likewise, people trying to get Bush elected performed some evil acts. Now that Bush has been made aware of what happened, he has the obligation to speak out against it and offer recompense as far as it is within his power to do so. In my view, his failure to even publicly condemn the acts makes him as guilty as those who performed them.

CNN reports, "James Baker, the balloting observer for Bush, said earlier today that Bush will 'vigorously oppose' the Democratic challenger's recounting efforts." Why is that? Doesn't George Bush want to make sure that every vote is properly counted? After all, we have already seen some problems. The original count in New Mexico gave the state to Gore, but a recount may give it to Bush. Florida, the state which will decide the election, started with almost 1800 votes separating the candidates. After the recount, we are presently down to 327 (though this number may still change). Bush realizes that if all votes which were actually cast for Gore are counted, he will lose.

ABCNews.com reported on 11/24/00 that Republican party operatives organized protests against counting the ballots in Dade and Broward County, but represented them as spontaneous protests from local citizens. These protests were influential in stopping the Dade County manual recounts. The protestors were most influential as they crashed through the doors and loudly demanded the recounts be ended. This behavior is not a normal and acceptable part of the democractic process. They are protesting the counting of votes! That is a necessary element of democracy. How shall we have the people rule if we do not count the votes indicating the people's will? If we allow some people to prevent others from voting or having their vote be counted our form of government becomes an oligarchy, or more accurately, mobocracy. Mr. Bush has not decried this attack on the basic elements of democracy. He and his campaign had no comment for ABC.

As I watch Bush and his co-conspirators, I am truly sickened by what I see. Bush has tried to declare votes illegal which almost certainly have gone to his opponent. He has accepted the actions of his supporters who made phone calls to discourage potential Gore supporters from voting. He is not concerned with what the voters have said, but only what he thinks they should have said. We can tell this because he has inhibited the counting process and democracy by having his lawyers issue subpeonas to the canvassing board and by threatening the counters that they would be named in his lawsuits. He has no public criticism for the Republican party operatives who successfully intimidated Dade County from finishing the manual recount. All of these actions are appalling and flagrant abuses against democracy.

It's no secret that Latter-day Saints, including myself, almost exclusively vote Republican. If you are a member of the Church, I would encourage you to rethink very carefully about how you vote in the future. God will hold you accountable for the choices you make. It is common for Latter-day Saints to believe that if we share the same view on abortion or some other issue with someone, then that is what is most important. This is false. When it comes to government, the most important issue is freedom. The LDS Articles of Faith state:

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

Freedom is the preeminent doctrine of the gospel, more important than any other doctrine including righteousness. Remember, in the Council in Heaven, it was Lucifer's goal to force us to be righteous. It was Heavenly Father's plan that we be allowed to choose between good and evil for ourselves. By his own actions, Heavenly Father told us freedom, even if we would choose wrong, was more important than compelled righteousness.

Over the years, I have seen a growing pattern of corruption, coercion, and hypocrisy enter the Republican party (e.g., McCarthyism, Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc.). Like Lucifer, these people desire to force us to follow their plan. Positions on social platforms such as abortion or same sex marriage are insignificant to the concept of freedom. Think back to the Counsel in Heaven -- what was Lucifer's plan? Follow me, I shall mandate that all shall be righteous and thus be saved. I shall force everyone to obey the commandments of God. While Heavenly Father wants us to obey his commandments, he wants it to be our choice without compulsion. And do the Republicans want us to have free choice? No, they believe that since they are the right choice (at least in their own minds), they should have the ability to enforce those right choices on everyone else.

As I have listened to the rhetoric coming out from the Republican side, I have heard one theme over and over again. George Bush needs to become President because he is the right man and Al Gore is the wrong man. In my view, the right man to become President is the one who received the most votes, regardless of whether I share his philosophy or not. Don't be fooled into thinking that because you share some common views with someone it is acceptable to overthrow democracy and install a despot in its place. The conservative Christians who control the Republican party would enforce your views on abortion, pornography, and a host of other ills on society, but they would also burn every Book of Mormon and deprive every Latter-day Saint of their rights if they could as well. While this is indeed strong language, one simply has to type in the word Mormons in any search engine and see all the hate and filth that comes up. You would install their despot because he would appoint Supreme Court Justices opposed to abortion, but what will you do when he also decides to destroy our temples? I am reminded of a poem by the Reverend Martin Niemöller, a pastor in the German Confessing Church who spent seven years in a concentration camp.

In Germany they first came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up

While I have voted Republican almost exclusively during my lifetime, from this time forward, I will not support a group so transparently disposed to follow Satan.

http://www.mormons.org/reflections/bush_coup.htm

-- John Walsh (walsh@mormons.org), January 17, 2001

Answers

(sigh)

Gore did not win the electoral college vote. He lost. The votes were counted in Florida... twice. President-elect Bush won both counts. Some ballots were improperly marked despite the usual barrage of instructions, information, guidance, posters, assistance, etc. Hey, there are people who call the flashlight manufacturer because they can't figure out how to install a pair of "AA" batteries.

If a vote is not properly cast, it is not recorded... nor should it be. The election process should not devolve into a mystical game of guessing "intent" or "will." The voter is responsible for following simple directions and casting a proper vote. It's the law.

This was not a "coup" or "junta" or "conspiracy." It was an election where both sides carried their issues to the legal system. Both parties had the opportunity to present evidence and make cases. One side won; the other side lost. There were no rebels, no guns, no cabals, no secret deals, no payoffs, no bribes to Supreme Court Justices. "Coup" my Aunt Petunia.

I don't the republicans or democrats distinguished themselves in the legal squabbles after the election. Unlike the author, I don't think the democrats blameless. Had the democrats requested a statewide manual recount rather than just a manual recount in heavily democratic counties, they may have had claim to a higher moral ground. As it was, both sides were fighting--not to preserve democracy--but to win an election. It's called politics.

The rest of the essay is a bunch of heavy breathing about Bush's linkages with the Lord of Darkness. It is also foolish to accuse conservative Christians of wanting to "burn every Book of Mormon and deprive every Latter-day Saint of their rights if they could as well." The vast majority of Americans (including conservative Christians) support religious tolerance. A handful of religious bigots do not represent the Christian community any more than a handful of racists represent Anglo-America.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 17, 2001.

W. John Walsh is a Morman kook-cultist extremist who writes gibberish such as this---

by W. John Walsh

First, you need to read the rest of Genesis chapter 3. In Genesis 3:22, it states "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil... ". Therefore, as the Lord himself says, Satan told Eve a half-truth. The Adversary lied when he said that Eve would "not surely die", but he told the truth when he said that she would become "like God, knowing good and evil."

To spread the false notion that Latter-day Saints do not show proper reverence towards the Godhead, anti-Mormons often tell people that Latter-day Saints believe that they will become co-equal, or on the same level, with God and no longer worship him. This misrepresentation is a twisting of an LDS doctrine called exaltation, a doctrine which the Bible clearly teaches.

Latter-day Saints believe our Heavenly Father has given us this mortal life to become more like him. Those who are true and faithful in all things will sit in the throne of Christ. (Rev 3:21) They will have the name of God the Father placed upon them (Rev 14:1) We believe that they shall be "heirs of God, and joint-heirs of Christ" (Rom 8:17). What shall the faithful inherit? ALL THINGS according to scripture (Heb 1:2) (See Heirs of God and Joint-Heirs with Christ)

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)

"For I [am] the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I [am] holy." (Leviticus 11:45)

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:2)

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." (John 14:12)

We call anyone who sits in the throne of God, has God's name and attributes, and who has inherited all things (i.e. - power, dominion, knowledge) from God-----a god.

Hence the scripture, "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods....I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." Psalms (82:1,6)

While we believe that the faithful will enjoy a life similar to our Heavenly Father, we also believe we will still be subject to and worship the God of Heaven, which is represented as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Furthermore, while we will be "gods, even the sons of God" (D&C 76:58), we will never be at the same level as them or stop worshipping them, but we will be like them and enjoy a quality of life similar to theirs.

-- (Marian_the_Librarian@BYU.edu), January 17, 2001.

To the simpleton who posted this article. Look at the date it was written. What is John Walsh's position now.

-- November 10 (three@days.after), January 17, 2001.

Gee, that's funny, Ken. If the votes were counted twice, why is a consortium of media down in Florida right now counting all those votes, recording all those ballots meticulously? Strange. It costs them thousands of dollars to do this. Why would they, if the votes had been counted?

As for your assertion that there was no coup:

Party Allies Wrongly Purged 'Felon' Voters

Since the Reconstruction, any Florida resident with a felony conviction is stripped of the right to vote, regardless of where the conviction occurred. After serving their sentences, felons can only be re-enfranchised after filling out mountains of paperwork and then winning the approval of the governor and two state representatives.

In June, between 8,000 and 12,000 Florida voters were wrongly purged from the voting rolls as felons. Many of those disenfranchised had never even been arrested; one was even a sitting judge. Meanwhile, hundreds of genuine felons were not purged and according to post- election analysis by the press were able to illegally cast votes, thus further muddying the election results.25

The Florida State Government uses an outside contractor to vet their voter rolls; it is the only state to do so. In 1998, the $4 million contract was awarded to a Boca Raton company called Database Technologies (DBT). Earlier this year, DBT was acquired by an Atlanta- area company called ChoicePoint Inc. According to SEC documents, ChoicePoint's acquisition of DBT was completed on May 15, just one month before the grossly inaccurate "purge lists" were turned over to Florida election officials.26

Curiously, it turned out ChoicePoint had obtained this false list of "felons" from the state of Texas.27 Yes, Texas. According to the company, a list of Texans convicted of misdemeanors had "somehow" been added to the Florida lists as felons. Some effort was made to contact those who had been wrongly purged, but most did not find out until they had arrived at their polling place only to be refused ballots.

Curiouser and curiouser, it turns out that ChoicePoint is closely tied to the Republican Party, and that its top executives and board members include many high-dollar donors. Among them is billionaire Ken Langone, who served as Rudolph Giuliani's fund-raising chairman in his aborted Senate run against Hillary Clinton.28 According to Federal Election Committee records, between 1997 and 1999 Langone donated at least $54,000 to Republican committees in campaigns. According to the most recent records available at press time, Langone gave another $29,000 or so within the last year, using multiple addresses and jobs to skirt federal limits. Ken's wife Elaine, who lists "homemaker" as her profession, gave another $8,000 to the Republicans just in the last year.29 Not bad for a mere homemaker.

Another Giuliani politico at ChoicePoint is former NY Police Commissioner Howard Safir. ChoicePoint's lobbyist, former congressman Vin Weber, has donated over $48,000 to the Republicans in the last three years.30 Company founder Rick Rozar himself donated $100,000 to the party just before his death in 1998.31 Other ChoicePoint employees and executives, or at least those who could be identified in the FEC database, have donated an additional $30,000, and probably a good deal more.

As this edition goes to press, the NAACP, ACLU and several other civil rights groups announced they have filed a federal lawsuit naming DBT and a number of Florida government and election officials defendants.32)

-- More to come (coup@indeed.com), January 17, 2001.

Have you heard the news? Jesse's girl had a his baby! Yes and he pays her $10,000 per month. Yes, $10,000 of your tax money! He was having this affair during the time he was counseling our beloved prez on Monica gate. You know, I could care less how many women he humps or how many children he fathers. What gets me is his preaching for the "rights" of poor people and he gives this woman $120K a year. 95% of the country never ever see that kind of money. I bet there are thousands of women lining up for a chance to have his baby. Maybe they can get off welfare now. Jesse Jackass!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 18, 2001.

Why are the media counting the votes? You must be joking. They are looking for a story. Stories sell papers or increase radio/TV ratings. Increased circulation or ratings sell more advertising. More ad sales means increased profits.

Oh, I suppose a few media are there for ideological reasons. The conservative rags want to prove Bush won; the liberal rags want to prove he lost. If 12 different news organizations count the votes, you'll get 12 different results.

There are allegations of fraud from both sides. These allegations surfaced during the post-election legal battles and have been heard in courts of law. Thus far, there has been more smoke than fire. Show me a single court decision that convicts someone in Florida of election-related misconduct. The case in your article wouldn't hold up five minutes in a court. You see, the legal system requires evidence, not just idle speculation.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 18, 2001.

Ken: >> The votes were counted in Florida ...twice. <<

Not all of them. FYI .

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), January 18, 2001.

Brian! Yay! You're back! :)

Optical scanners make voting much easier for the voter and for the election board doing the counting. I hope more of them are in use for the next presidential election.

-- helen (b@r.f), January 18, 2001.

>> You're back! <<

Not really. Just lurking still. In lurk mode I have not found much to draw me back in. This was just an informational foray, an attempt to correct a misimpression of Ken's. It is not his fault. We all carry many mistaken ideas about this election. We were frequently misled and misinformed about the details of the election and the subsequent court cases. A full, balanced account will probably be written... in maybe 60 or 70 years, after the passions have cooled.

Sorry, helen, but I am going back to the shadows now.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), January 18, 2001.

Nor Brian, do I think your sanctimony entirely your fault... though you are welcome to descend from the Heavens when so inclined.

Perhaps I should be more precise in my language. The ballots were counted and recounted according to Florida State law. Bush won both times. The vote was certified. The electoral college moved forward and the election concluded. The entire process may have been unsightly, but it was legal as determined by the Supreme Court.

Was every "vote" counted? It depends on how you define a "vote." There were nearly 6 million valid ballots cast in Florida. A small percentage of ballots were not valid. There is a great deal of hand wringing about how "every vote counts," but this is mostly the political rhetoric of the defeated party. There is no election process that can provide an ironclad guarantee against voter stupidity or simple error. There will always be lost "votes." And there will always be accusations of mischief from both sides of the aisle.

Given the amount of ballot handling underway, I doubt we'll ever have perfect information about the Florida election... and it looks like it will always be a statistical dead heat. Fortunately, we don't use statistics to determine election results... otherwise, we could just have a polling firm pick the next president.

Link

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 18, 2001.

I'm finding this issue increasingly tiresome, but, Ken:

"Had the democrats requested a statewide manual recount rather than just a manual recount in heavily democratic counties, they may have had claim to a higher moral ground..."

Didn't they do this? My memory may be foggy, or I may have dreamed it, but I can swear I saw Gore himself on the TV screen proposing this. It was rejected by the republicans (in my dream.)

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 18, 2001.

"Berry emphasized at various times during the hearings that it was not necessary to prove deliberate misconduct for the commission to rule that violations of the Voting Rights Act occurred. A pattern of neglect and/or incompetence is enough.

"The commission will hold a second hearing in Miami next month and possibly a third somehwhere else in the state before reporting its findings to Congress and the Administration. The commission is empowered to recommend civil and/or criminal penalties for those responsible for civil rights violations."

-- This is not idle speculation (this@is.fact), January 18, 2001.

As I have listened to the rhetoric coming out from the Republican side, I have heard one theme over and over again. George Bush needs to become President because he is the right man and Al Gore is the wrong man. In my view, the right man to become President is the one who received the most votes, regardless of whether I share his philosophy or not. Don't be fooled into thinking that because you share some common views with someone it is acceptable to overthrow democracy and install a despot in its place.

-- Important Point (john@walsh.com), January 18, 2001.

Hey Marian the Librarian:

Do you wear those funny underwear too? Why?

Just wondering

-- just (just@wondering.why), January 19, 2001.