Take a look at this map.
It's a map showing the results of the voting in Tuesday's Virginia election for governor. All the solid red areas voted a majority for Cuccinelli. The small Dark blue ares went Terry McAuliffe (Yes, I know those are the most densely populated areas of Virginia). The rest were mixed.
Notice that the map seems to be almost solid red. And yet, Ken Cuccinelli somehow very narrowly lost to his Democrat opponent. To me, something smells about this race (not just because of all the red on the map) and I suspect Ken Cuccinelli actually won Virginia, but certain things happened, beyond the betrayal by some Republicans, campaign weaknesses and other reported issues, to ensure that that would not be the official result.
Some people would call me a sore loser or a conspiracy nut. Well, I'm not a sore loser because LifeSiteNews just observes what happens and reports on it. I did not and was not eligible to vote for Ken Cuccinelli. As for conspiracies, well, I would much rather make logicial conclusions about suspect circumstances.
What I have observed for some time is the undeniable fact that Barack Obama, the Clintons and many of their key allies (like Terry McAuliffe) are very unethical political operators and chronic liars seemingly willing to do whatever has to be done to gain and to hold onto power.
The McAuliffe campaign for instance frequently lied that Cuccinelli was going to outlaw contraception. They knew it was a lie and spent big dollars with their also chronically lying Planned Parenthood friends to spread this lie in ads in the more liberal parts of the state. It is perfectly natural to ask, "How can they get away with this when it is indisputable that they lied"?
One of the biggest problems that LifeSiteNews has had since its inception is the unwillingness of many good people to believe or accept the facts that we report and the many warnings that we have published about what to us have been obvious negative developments.
After so many years of this we have gotten to fully trust our hunches and instincts related to observations of known associations, trends, exhibited attitudes, frequent outcomes and much else. Those hunches have almost always turned out to be right on the mark over time, with the facts eventually confirming what was suspected from long experience. In fact, they have often turned out to be much worse than even we expected and for which we got much criticism from well intended readers.
My overwhelming hunch is that the McAuliffe campaign, with the help of traitorous social liberal Republicans, engineered the voting to make sure that Ken Cuccinelli could not win the election no matter how many people voted for him.
One of many things that could have been done is explained in this video (for some strange reason I can't embed the video in this blog post) about possible election fraud having taken place during the last presidential election.
In my 2012 post-election column I wrote that substantial election fraud very likely got Barack Obama his second term as president to do all the horrific damage that he is now doing to the United States.
I noted there were other reasons for the Republican loss, one of which was that they had a weak candidate in Romney. This time around in Virginia, the Republican candidate was a man well worth voting for because he is an exceptionally principled, proven, competent and trustworthy candidate. Voters are attracted to and will vote for candidates of obvious integrity because they know they can trust them.
They will vote for them even if they disagree with the candidate on moral issues because pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, etc, voters usually don't decide their vote on those issues. Yes, that is true, except for the minority of extremists. Pro-life, pro-family voters on the other hand are far more likely to give high priority to the candidate's views on these issues when making their vote decision.
There was a clear, night and day difference between McAuliffe and Cuccinelli and I don't believe Virginians were so foolish as to actually have elected such an obvious political sleaze as McAuliffe. I know, that's strong language that I don't normally write, but someone has to say it.
Here's another map telling telling another story.
The evidence to me has been that openly social conservative candidates will often win elections as long as they are competent on all the issues, politically attractive and able to respond skillfully to any challenges to their moral issue positions.
It is a constant lie that a candidate hurts his or her election chances by ALWAYS being openly and confidently social conservative. I say it is a lie very simply because far too many strongly pro-life, pro-family candidates have proven it to be a lie by being elected and then re-elected again and again. It is to the candidate's distinct advantage to never run away from stating his or her pro-life, pro-family beliefs when the issues are brought up.
More people than we realize respect such unapologetic forthrightness on ethical issues, no matter what the screaming, threatening media mob and abortion and gay activists indicate otherwise.
Any instruction from political campaign advisors to lay low on abortion, gay "marriage' and so forth should ALWAYS be ignored. In fact such persons should be removed from a pro-life candidate's campaign team. They are a serious liability to the success of the campaign because they don't believe in the candidate.
I have seen far too many top quality pro-life candidates go down to avoidable electoral defeat as a result of trusting those advisors over their consciences, over their friends telling them not to listen to these people and over God who tells them to trust Him. They kill the support from their most loyal base when they do this.
That has been one of the most consistent, sad trends that I have had to endure in the political area of my over 30 years involvement in pro-life and related issues. Pro-life candidates have been far too easily led like sheep to slaughter by sharp political sharks.
Ken Cuccinelli, even though he was not allowed to win Virginia, was still a huge winner in many ways. He did extremely well despite overwhelming odds. He showed that a very principled, decent family man CAN defeat the bad guys and inspire others to try to do the same.
This election also showed that genuine political conservatives have finally got to deal with and expel the RINO republicans for their dirty betrayals, and if that can't be done they have to start a new party but make sure in the process that the Republican Party is gutted of any more influence. The false conservatives have been tolerated for too long and now they are endangering America.
There needs to be a rebellion, but well thought out and with great determination. Maybe the Viriginia election will be the spark to start the revolution that has been overdue for many years in American politics. Karl Rove and company are far more dangerous to US stability and freedom than any other element in the Republican Party. They are egotistical, power hungry frauds, liberals masquerading as conservatives and the worst example of politicians that have made Americans extremely cynical of all politicians.
I sincerely hope that Ken runs for office again. This was a learning experience for everyone. Next time, I suspect things won't go nearly as easy for the bad guys. Yes, I am deliberately using the term "bad guys" because they are.
I am a big fan of the Max Brand, Louis L'Amour and Zane Grey western novels in which things were very plainly stated about certain types of people. The real heroes in life don't fret about some people telling them they should mind their own business, stop thinking bad about some people and being overly suspicious or supposedly conspiracy-minded nuts. No the real heroes just go ahead and do what they know they are obliged to do, regardless of any consequences to themselves, and even if no one else understands. It's just right. That's all.
Anyway, that's my opinion.
See related excellent articles:
The Sabatoge Republicans by Jeffrey Lord
The anti-Cuccinelli axis - Democrats, Republicans, low information voters - By Peter Ferrara
Also, see the comments below the article. A lot of thoughtful (and not so thoughful) back and forth there.