Steve Jalsevac

My strong hunch is that Ken Cuccinelli actually won Virginia

Steve Jalsevac
Image
Image

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

Abortion Lobby, Democrats, some Republicans gloat over Ken Cuccinelli’s loss

5 ways Ken Cuccinelli proved a social conservative can win Virginia (and the nation)

Cuccinelli Only the Latest Conservative Candidate Targeted by G.O.P

How the GOP Blue it in Virginia

Election fraud: The far left steals the election for Terry McAuliffe

Also, see the comments below the article. A lot of thoughtful (and not so thoughful) back and forth there.

Truth. Delivered daily.

Get FREE pro-life, pro-family news delivered straight to your inbox. 

Select Your Edition:


Advertisement

Mugging by Catholic bloggers

Steve Jalsevac
Steve Jalsevac

Now and then various Church officials complain about deeply uncharitable and harmful discussions on some Catholic blogs. Facebook, blogs, Twitter and even email can each far too easily allow angry thoughts that cross people’s minds to be published for all the world to see without the sober second thought that would naturally accompany face-to-face or spoken communication.

There was a recent attack against LifeSiteNews from a very well known Catholic writer and another such writer and her husband. Using these means of unfiltered near-instant communications, they poured calumny and invective on LifeSiteNews and our talented and committed staff.

Critics who obviously know very little about us, how we function, and our editorial decision-making penned very harsh judgments about our motives and other aspects of our work.

Here are just a few samples of what was what posted on the Facebook pages of various well-known and prolific Catholic writers:

  • “Two sentences that make me turn on my bullshit detector: ones that start, ‘Guess what Pope Francis just did?’ and ones that start, ‘According to LifeSiteNews . . . ‘”
  • “lying assholes who attack the Church”
  • “lazy, biased, and stupid reporting”
  • “no respect for LSN as a whole”
  • “an organization with a bad reputation”
  • “no news sense and no conscience”
  • hang your “head in shame for attempting to bring division in the Church through inaccurate and dishonest reporting”
  • “anti-Catholic bias”
  • “They have a distorted view of reality, and no conscience when it comes to reporting lies in order to advance the agenda.”
  • “sleazier than the National Enquirer”
  • “They don't actually do any reporting. They rewrite a lot of other people's reporting without checking facts or giving attribution.”
  • “The narcissism and pride is epic.”

Criticism naturally comes with the territory of journalism and should always be expected. However, when this kind of crude assault is hurled so recklessly from fellow Catholics or other Christians, it does leave us unsettled. Moreover, when such vile language and character assassination comes from Catholics who are published at influential Catholic publications, it is also a concern for the writers’ own Catholic reputation and that of their employers.

LifeSiteNews does not claim to be a Catholic organization. We have many good and faithful Catholics on staff, but we do not claim to be a Catholic organization and our reporting is intended for people of all faiths and even no faith. 

Nothing written by LifeSiteNews ever remotely approaches the level of calumny in the condemnations and criticisms seen in the Facebook posts mentioned. We explicitly forbid our writers from making such comments and are constantly removing similar comments from readers commenting under our reports. That is not free speech. We consider it to be an abuse of freedom. We also have a policy of never responding in kind to such comments.

However, a natural response is: “Where is the Christianity in any of these comments?” It boggles the mind that anyone would publicly exhibit such a total lack of charity for all the world to see and think that they are thus exhibiting love of God or properly defending the Church or Pope Francis.

We often encourage our readers to be very respectful in any communications they make in response to our reports. We recognize that condemnatory, hostile, and disrespectful communications will always cause harm and hardly ever help advance the cause of life and family.

Why the scandal of such ad-hominem attacks are permitted by well-known Catholic websites is a puzzle. LifeSiteNews is only one of many victims who have been targeted and at times harmed by these all-too-frequent, very uncharitable, and careless blog postings over the years. 

Productive dialogue is impossible without mutual respect. Still, we never close the door to future communications if circumstances change. Many of us on the LifeSiteNews team have gone through major life conversions, so we understand the importance of forgiveness and charity.

One of our team did attempt to reach out and dialogue. Unfortunately, all attempts to respond to the criticism charitably, humbly, and privately, resulted in further, public attacks against the professionalism and integrity of LifeSiteNews, and on the personal character of LifeSiteNews personnel.

At LifeSiteNews we welcome feedback and reasoned, respectful criticism. When readers feel we are not doing the job, or are not doing it well, we take it seriously. We try to respond with charity, humility, and clarity.

The feedback we’ve received over the years has varied wildly from being told we are “doing the work of Satan” to the more usual one that we are doing God’s work. We‘ve been told more times than we can count, in emails and personal encounters with readers, that our reports are among the most reliable, trustworthy, and professionally written on the Internet on the issues that we cover. That is truly our aim. We pray and work every day to arrive at that lofty goal. And with your support, your prayers, and your constructive advice, I’m sure we can maintain our current high level of reporting while always striving to improve it even more.

Share this article

Advertisement

Thank Canada's Archbishop Richard Smith; watch excellent EWTN coverage of Ottawa march Sat.

Steve Jalsevac
Steve Jalsevac

Edmonton Archbishop Richard Smith’s strong, blunt criticism of Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau’s outrageous announcement that pro-life candidates will no longer be permitted to run for the Liberal Party is a welcome change from the usual silence of Canada’s bishops on almost all such developments.

I really hope many pro-life Canadians thank Archbishop Smith for speaking out and encourage him to continue to publicly hold Canadian Catholic politicians accountable for their anti-life and anti-family pronouncements, votes and other actions.

Here is the archbishop’s contact information:

Most Rev. Richard SMITH
Archbishop of Edmonton
8421-101 Avenue

Edmonton (AB) T6A 0L1

Tel: (780) 469-1010
Fax: (780) 465-3003
Web Site
Message entry page

And PLEASE, don’t criticize him for not doing all that you think that he should have said and done about Trudeau. This was a positive step. Congratulations, gratitude and encouragement is what you should convey.

Hopefully, more bishops will start to publicly hold to account Canada’s Catholic politicians who have very badly betrayed the people of Canada by leading, as have Justin and many other Canadian Catholic politicians, the advancement of the culture of death in Canada. It has been a sordid, terrible record so far, probably worse than in any other nation in the world.

The archbishop proclaimed that Justin’s announcement of his pathetic policy just before the Marches for Life to be "slap" in the face for all those who would be participating in the various marches across Canada. How true that is and I hope Canadians do not conveniently forget this travesty when the next federal election finally comes around.

Voters have a strong tendency to forget these things, much to the benefit of the worst politicians. Hopefully, there will be more strong statements from Canadian bishops around election time in order to refresh memories.

By the way, the EWTN coverage of the National March for Life in Ottawa was really outstanding this year. If you missed it, I strongly recommend that you tune into the replay tomorrow (Saturday) from 1 to 5:30 p.m.

I wasn’t able to make it to the March this year, having just come back from 10 days in Rome and now preparing for Washington next week, but I did catch some of the EWTN coverage and was thoroughly impressed.  If you can’t get EWTN on your cable network I believe the program can still be viewed via the EWTN website. 

Give it a go.  It is a wonderful way to experience the march and a lot of the interviews were great. LifeSiteNews team members John-Henry Westen and John Jalsevac were among those interviewed.

And I must also mention that Sun News gave the Ottawa March for Life excellent, fair coverage. See a list of their video reports here.

Unfortunately, there was one begrudging report in the National Post, "Activists entrench on abortion", by what appeared to be a feminist writer, Meghan Hurley, consistently refering to "anti-abortionists", that had a pro-abortion edge to it. There was also a the predicatable accompanying photo of just a small portion of the massive crowd with emphasis on a large cross in the middle.

The article and the text under the photo presented the ridiculously far too low estimated number of persons present as only 6,000 to 8,000 persons. I don't understand why the Post would allow such obvious inaccuracy and poor reporting to be published as a supposed professional news report on the march.

To anyone who was there, the report really undermined the credibility of the Post. Any reasonably seasoned reporter who was at the event would have easily seen that the number was likely far closer to the march organizers' offical count of 23,000. the RCMP count has always been way off the mark as well and it has always been noticed that both the RCMP and Ottawa police are not not remotely enthused about having to cover the march every year. The pathetic police response to the Femen protesters this year really gave evidence to their atttitude towards the pro-life event - no matter how many Members of Parliament, Senators and Catholic bishops and cardinals are present.  

However, we do have to give the Post credit for publishing a lot of excellent commentaries on the Justin Trudeau statement that no pro-life candidates would be allowed to run for the Liberal Party while he is the leader.

Share this article

Advertisement

Legatus Summit blew us away

Steve Jalsevac
Steve Jalsevac
Image
Image

John-Henry Westen, Jon Fidero and I just came back from attending the annual Legatus Summit in Orlando, Florida that took place this past Thursday to Saturday. It was an astonishing event, in that every speaker was rock solid and of the highest quality from the pro-life and pro-family perspective.

For those of us from LifeSiteNews and many others who heard John Smeaton's talk titled, "Bishops are the first ones called to be untiring preachers of the Gospel of Life", his was the highlight of the conference. Smeaton's current-state-of-the-world speech was high calibre, very well prepared and revealed his thorough knowledge of developments in England, Ireland and much of the world that in the end give cause for alarm, but also for hope. I overheard a few Legatus members state that they were shaken by what Smeaton revealed.

Smeaton's presentation was about far more than just the subject of denying communion to pro-abortion politicians. It is a 13-page masterpiece overview of a world in major crisis regarding the value of human life and what must be done about this crisis. I have personally known this incredible man for several years and can vouch for his competence and the truth of all that he said in his talk.

Smeaton's talk is MUST READING for all good people in order to understand just where we are at at this alarming time in history. He was notably passionate while giving his erudite presentation because he knew he had to be. He knows what is at stake now regardless of the contradictory claims by some that abortion will soon be ended.

This particular audience was one that might be able to do something about the reality of the looming monsters that we are about to face unless strong actions are quickly taken, especially by the leadership of the Catholic Church. There is no way to overemphasize or exaggerate the gravity of the situation. PLEASE read Smeaton's full talk that is linked to at the bottom of the article and then pass it around far and wide. Thank Legatus for allowing John Smeaton this special opportunity to present his prophetic message for the world at such an opportune gathering.

But back to the rest of the conference. The many members of this Catholic Christian business leaders’ organization, founded by Domino's Pizza billionaire Tom Monaghan, that we met during our stay blew us away. It is rare to attend such an event where most people really get it about the culture war that has been raging in the world. We also found everyone we met to be especially warm and gracious personalities and very open to engage in conversation about the difficult subjects that LifeSiteNews covers, no doubt largely because of their personal commitment to live their Catholic faith in all that they do.

Legatus members want to learn more and do whatever they can to help evangelize the world with Christian principles and the saving truths of the Christian faith. We saw that this personally means a lot to these high level business CEOs and their families. We found them to have much higher principles than we normally associate with persons in top business leadership positions.

After having now attended our second Legatus Summit as exhibitors and sponsors, I would strongly recommend membership in Legatus to any Catholic business leader who meets its membership qualifications. Husbands AND wives are strongly encouraged to attend together to emphasize the importance of the married couple and their family as the foundation of society. Legatus is clearly not a typical men-only business organization.

The personal growth experiences and exceptional fellowship opportunities that it offers can only enrich the lives of its members and their families.  Legatus also provides a real benefit to the rest of us who are not business leaders in that these specially gifted men and women are being guided by their Legatus formation to take on larger roles than many of us are capable of to make this a better world. There was a lot of stress on the essential role of the laity, partnering with their bishops, in the evangelizing mission of the Church.

Hats off to Tom Monaghan and his team of leaders and also to the membership of Legatus for incorporating into their business life a high calling to life, family and faith, without which they realize all their other successes would be seriously lacking full satisfaction and meaning. Legatus helps them to open and keep their eyes on God’s rewarding expectations of them. That is a win-win for everyone.

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook