Steady streams of voters and no big problems in Toledo

I've just returned from a trip around various polling locations in the north end and central city area of Toledo and I'm pleased to report no big problems, no long lines and very happy voters. While some areas had waits in the early morning, it was down to just a few minutes this afternoon.

I spent time at seven polling locations and, at each one, there were representatives from the Voter Rights Institute, Voter Protection Institute, County Issue 37 - the COSI levy, and the Democratic Party with slate card. At one location, a member of the UAW was there distributing a list of their endorsements.

Everyone reported that there were some lines in the morning, especially as the polls first opened up. This made sense to everyone working or volunteering for a campaign, since many wanted to vote before work and get it out of the way. In several locations, there were volunteers from Ann Arbor and locally who had on buttons that said 'line manager.' They were volunteering for the Obama campaign to help with long lines - and, as they explained, to go along and make sure everyone was ready with their ID, etc. so they would be ready to vote. When I spoke to these managers, there were no lines requiring their services.

The representatives from the Voter Rights Institute were pleasant, engaging voters and distributing lime green cards explaining their rights and the requirements. They made suggestions and reminded voters to remove their campaign buttons before entering the polling location, as the law requires. Voters were appreciative of this.

The representatives from the Voter Protection Institute were Obama campaigners, primarily attorneys, who spoke only to voters and not to any media. When I asked one of them which group they were with, VPI or VRI, she would only say that she didn't speak to the media, but when she displayed her tag, it said Voter Protection at the bottom. As she approached individual voters, though, they did not seem to receive her well, so maybe it was just her and not the organization.

All of the COSI levy supporters I spoke to said they had been asked to volunteer today and been requested to hand out information urging a yes vote on Issue 37. All explained that they did support the issue, but they had agreed to volunteer and this was what was asked of them.

I did meet a very impressive young man named Anthony who, at 19, had voted earlier in the week in his first presidential campaign. He was handing out COSI flyers and said he was enjoying the campaigning and would be likely to volunteer again next year. Good for him!

Having been one of those individuals who stands at a poll all day long, I truly appreciate the individuals who take their personal time and dedicate it to participation in the process.

As for election issues, most of the individuals said the problems had been minor and primarily upon opening as clarification for questions was made. Only in one location did there seem to be an issue with an observer speaking directly to the voters about things, instead of to the poll workers. I was standing within earshot as one of the presiding judges approached a Board of Elections troubleshooter and told him that the observer 'was at it again.' Apparently, this observer had been requested and told several times already that any issues he observed needed to be communicated to the poll workers and the presiding judge for the precinct - not directly to the voters. The troubleshooter then approached the observer to straighten things out.

I saw no instances of voter fraud, voter suppression and even found most people carefully following the 'no campaigning inside the flags' rule.

Additionally, many of the people I spoke to were happy and upbeat and said they'd been seeing the same attitude in others. The 70 degree, sunny weather obviously has a positive impact. Many of the long-time volunteers said their impression was that many of the voters were younger than they normally see and they were encouraged by this.

News reports indicate there are longer lines in some of the other areas of Lucas County, including Sylvania city and township where a merger issue is on the ballot. Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner said some of the longest lines in the state are here in Toledo. According to the chairman of the Lucas County Board of Elections, Patrick Kriner, she told him her office had three phone call complaints.

Kriner estimates that as of about 2 p.m., they'd had about 58% of registered voters cast their ballots.

Voter Protection Institute not following election rules?

In travelling around to the various polling locations, I came across two groups with ID tags: The Voting Rights Institute (wearing green jackets) and the Voter Protection Institute.

At Chase Elementary, a member of the Voter Protection Institute was one of the certified observers inside the polling location. He recognized me and introduced himself and even volunteered to show me his official certification document to prove he was a certified observer. He seemed particularly proud that, even though he was certified on behalf of the Obama campaign, he helped a Republican to vote. But, as he explained, he's an attorney and, as an officer of the court, believed it appropriate to help any voter.

However, the non-certified members of the VPI, did not seem as interested in following the laws.

Upon our arrival, I had my laptop open in the car and it was easily seen as we pulled in. One representative of this group went over to the other one and they both looked in my direction and then moved to OUTSIDE the flags. In Ohio, any campaign or non-official poll workers/observers must stay outside the actual polling location (100 feet) which is designated by American flags.

Despite having their tags on lanyards clearly observable, they also had Obama campaign literature and stickers.

I went inside and, after identifying myself, added up the numbers on the slips of paper which indicate how many individuals had voted and by what method (either touch screen, paper or provisional). This is just the numbers - not any identifying information - and it is data that media/public are allowed to access.

At my polling location at about 10:30, we had around 250 people vote. At this polling location, by 10:45, they had over 550 ballots cast. Both polling locations have only two precincts.

There was also a representative from the Obama campaign waiting for the 11 a.m. list. At 11 a.m. and 3 p.m., each polling location publishes a list of all individuals who have voted. The various campaigns always rush for these lists and then use them to contact voters who haven't yet gone to the polls.

Upon leaving the polling area, I noticed that several of the VPI representatives were, again, inside the flags, so I politely reminded them that they had to be on the other side of the flags. They promptly complied.

However, considering that there aren't really people to enforce the distance requirement, I don't have much confidence that they will continue to abide by this rule.

Single non-voter responsible for McCain win

Normally, I delete emails in my spam box from people and addresses I don't recognize. But the email from moveon.org had me a bit curious, so I opened the message and found this:

Dear maggie,

Your friend sent you the following video from CNNBC: "Obama's Loss Traced To Maggie Thurber"

Watch it here:

The link takes you screen with the following message:

Election Day Notice: The video you're about to see portrays events that haven't happened... yet.

It was prepared just for you. But if you go vote today you can make sure this joke doesn't become a reality.

Click here to continue.

Up pops a fake cnnbc news video indicating that "Obama's Loss Traced To Non-Voter, Single Nonvoter Tipped Election To McCain-Palin Ticket." It contained my name and the story of how I had to be taken into protective custody from all the Obama supporters who were rioting because I didn't vote.

The 'news' report also mentions a 'sliver' of people actually happy about the event, with cuts of President George Bush thanking me for my service, and the reporter asking how long it will be until we nuke Iran - probably Saturday, around lunchtime.

There is, of course, an option for you to customize the video for your friends.

This is certainly a unique idea, and it's not the first one I've seen. Earlier in the summer, a friend sent a customized video about a group of people who decide to nominate and vote for a 'regular person' so they picked a name out of a phone book and it turned out to be ... me!

My compliments to MoveOn.org for their cleverness and creativity.

GOP???

Ohio GOP slams Brunner in new ad

The video for the new web ad using Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner's own words against her.

The script:

Jennifer Brunner: "I will work day and night for you to restore your trust to elections, so that when you are dealing with the presidential election in 2008, perhaps no one will know my name like Ken Blackwell or Katherine Harris, because the Secretary of State is doing her job."

Steve Doocy, Fox: "The Secretary of State is a Democrat by the name of Jennifer Brunner

Various Reporters: "Jennifer Brunner"

John Gibson, Fox: "To the great people of the state of Ohio, heads up, somebody is trying to steal your election"

Various Reporters: "Jennifer Brunner"

As Inigo Montoya said:

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Obama will kill Ohio coal industry and jobs

If elected, Obama favors draconian restrictions on coal and coal-fired plants. He's been traversing the state telling us how much he's going to do for us, but somehow forgot to mention that 'I haven't been some coal booster' and 'if they want to build [coal plants], they can, but it will bankrupt them.'

Mike Carey, president of the Ohio Coal Association, issued a devastating response to Obama's comments that have recently been released:

Regardless of the timing or method of the release of these remarks, the message from the Democratic candidate for President could not be clearer: the Obama-Biden ticket spells disaster for America's coal industry and the tens of thousands of Americans who work in it.

These undisputed, audio-taped remarks, which include comments from Senator Obama like 'I haven't been some coal booster' and 'if they want to build [coal plants], they can, but it will bankrupt them' are extraordinarily misguided. "It's evident that this campaign has been pandering in states like Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana and Pennsylvania to attempt to generate votes from coal supporters, while keeping his true agenda hidden from the state's voters.

Senator Obama has revealed himself to be nothing more than a short- sighted, inexperienced politician willing to say anything to get a vote. But today, the nation's coal industry and those who support it have a better understanding of his true mission, to 'bankrupt' our industry, put tens of thousands out of work and cause unprecedented increases in electricity prices."

This is one of the reasons Democrats love early voting...when these sorts of things are exposed in the final days of the campaign, it's too late for many to change their votes.

If you work in the coal industry - or rely upon energy generated (partially or totally) by coal, I hope you'll consider Obama's plan for your jobs and Ohio's industry.

Sowell: Obama nothing but ego and mouth

Wow - talk about directness! I would say that Thomas Sowell calls a spade a spade, but someone would probably accuse me of some sort of racist comment.

But this column is hard-hitting, direct, and factual, starting with:

"After the big gamble on subprime mortgages that led to the current financial crisis, is there going to be an even bigger gamble, by putting the fate of a nation in the hands of a man whose only qualifications are ego and mouth?

Barack Obama has the kind of cocksure confidence that can only be achieved by not achieving anything else."

He highlights Obama's lack of experience in running any type of enterprise and the corresponding lack of maturity:

"The kind of self-righteous self-confidence that has become Obama's trademark is usually found in sophomores in Ivy League colleges-- very bright and articulate students, utterly untempered by experience in real world.

The signs of Barack Obama's self-centered immaturity are painfully obvious, though ignored by true believers who have poured their hopes into him, and by the media who just want the symbolism and the ideology that Obama represents."

And then he hits just about every issue, in a concise, but biting, way.

On 'redistribution':

"For someone who has actually accomplished nothing to blithely talk about taking away what has been earned by those who have accomplished something, and give it to whomever he chooses in the name of "spreading the wealth," is the kind of casual arrogance that has led to many economic catastrophes in many countries."

On judicial appointments:

"The equally casual ease with which Barack Obama has talked about appointing judges on the basis of their empathies with various segments of the population makes a mockery of the very concept of law."

On the military and foreign relations:

"After this man has wrecked the economy and destroyed constitutional law with his judicial appointments, what can he do for an encore? He can cripple the military and gamble America's future on his ability to sit down with enemy nations and talk them out of causing trouble.

Senator Obama's running mate, Senator Joe Biden, has for years shown the same easy-way-out mindset. Senator Biden has for decades opposed strengthening our military forces. In 1991, Biden urged relying on sanctions to get Saddam Hussein's troops out of Kuwait, instead of military force, despite the demonstrated futility of sanctions as a means of undoing an invasion."

On his choice of a liar as his running mate:

"Flashing his special phony smile, Biden said, "I think I have a much higher IQ than you do." He added, "I went to law school on a full academic scholarship" and "ended up in the top half" of the class.

But Biden did not have a full academic scholarship. Newsweek reported: "He went on a half scholarship based on need. He didn't finish in the 'top half' of his class. He was 76th out of 85." "

Of course, many of these details were conveniently overlooked by the media - and most of Obama's adoring fans. Many have said they'll vote for Obama because he makes them 'feel good.' But that feeling cannot last forever, and eventually, the feelings have to be able to be supported by the acts - and Obama doesn't have a record of such follow-through.

Sowell's column gives all Obama supporters something to THINK about, rather than just bask in the glow of the Obama aura.

The politics of selfishness

“The state cannot get a cent for any man without taking it from some other man, and this latter must be a man who has produced and saved it. This latter is the Forgotten Man.” ~ William Graham Sumner

Barack Obama, in defending his 'spread the wealth,' redistributionist tax policies, recently said:

"John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic. You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."

Isn't just like a socialist to describe your desire to make your own decisions about how to spend the money you've earned as 'selfish'?

What could be more selfish than someone thinking you should give them your money so they can spend it instead of you? Please note - they don't want to redistribute their own funds - no, they want to take your funds and give them away.

It's also a rather popular media ploy - to attack a logical argument with - what did the Clintons call it? - the 'politics of personal destruction.' You are no longer 'good' if you think you can do a better job of spending your funds than the government. Now, you are being 'selfish' if you don't want to give your money to the government so it can give it to someone else, instead.

And this is, indeed, a media ploy, as well as a poor defense against a policy rejected by the majority of Americans. Dictionary.com defines 'selfish' as:

"devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others"

Under this definition, Obama seems to be saying that Republicans, conservatives and even many Democrats care only for themselves, without regard to our fellow man.

But then, that's in keeping with what Democrats believe. Remember the interview with Ohio Democrat Party Chairman Chris Redfern on NewsTalk 1370 WSPD?

As I wrote on August 27, 2008, the date of the interview:

"When morning show host Fred Lefebvre used his board operator, Don Zellars, as an example of someone who wants to know why he has to pay for other people's homes and food while struggling to pay for his own, Redfern's comment was that Don must feel really good inside knowing he's helping so many people.

Redfern explained that America needs to tax people to provide charitable services through the government because, without forcing people through taxation, most Americans wouldn't help take care of the 'least among us.' When Fred pointed out that Don would be happy to help 'the least among us' if government weren't taking so much of his money first, Redfern said:

"I suspect Don would, but unfortunately, most Americans would not - and if we remove that kind of support, stratagem, then you remove the entire reason for having any kind of projects, programs, initiatives..."

This is the driving philosophy behind calling us selfish - the idea that if government doesn't FORCE us, through the power of law, to 'give,' we wouldn't do it.

However, nothing could be further from the truth. Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University and author of "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism," documents that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives. Brooks found:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

You see, conservatives believe the duty to help others is their own - and not something they should abdicate to the government. And because we disagree on the METHOD of caring for others, Obama calls us selfish.

What's truly selfish is that the individuals supporting Obama and this 'share the wealth' philosophy believe they should be given what other people have - just because. I don't have X, you do, therefore, I should be given part of your X. Talk about selfishness and greed!

The biggest tragedy of the politics of selfishness is the emphasis on the money and the spending. By calling conservatives 'selfish' it focuses the discussion on a personal attribute, rather than the proper role of government. The question really isn't 'is a person selfish' because they don't believe in redistributionist tax policies, the proper question we should be asking is this: Is it the proper role of government to take something from a citizen of this country in order to give it to another citizen?

This is not about jointly sharing the costs of such public infrastructures as roads, or about interstate commerce, or even mutual defense of the country and persons. This is about whether or not the property you acquire is free from confiscation by the government in order to gift it to another.

As I said in my Toledo Free Press column, our founders would be appalled:

Ben Franklin said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

And James Madison said, “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

But I suppose Obama, Democrat leaders and others would call them 'selfish' too.

U.S. Attorney General should investigate Ohio voter fraud

When the Ohio Republican Party had it's lawsuit against Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court, it wasn't because of the merits of the case, but because the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) does not authorize a lawsuit by a private party. According to the law, only the Attorney General of the United States is authorized by Section 401 to bring a civil action to enforce the statute.

So what is the Department of Justice doing?

Two federal courts, including the applicable court of appeals, have stated specifically that the law is being violated by a state official. If the Justice Department believes the courts are wrong and the Secretary of State is correct, then it has an obligation to issue a statement explaining why it believes that is true. If the Justice Department agrees with the courts, then it has an even more compelling obligation to fulfill its enforcement duties and immediately file suit. Not a lot of work would be required other than to ask the federal district court to reissue its TRO ordering the Secretary of State to comply with the law – all of the evidentiary findings have already been made and approved by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

But the Justice Department excuse is that it isn't appropriate to file litigation so close to Election Day.

Now that claim is being disputed. In a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, dated Oct. 31, 2001, former attorneys in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department dispute statements that "the activities of the Department before and after Election Day have essentially been limited to “placing federal observers to monitor elections pursuant to provisions of the Voting Rights Act.""

"This claim is inaccurate both as a matter of fact and established practice, as evidenced by the many lawsuits that have, over time, been filed by the Civil Rights Divisions before federal elections. In fact, just within the last month, the Division has filed two complaints and one amicus brief in three different election-related cases to enforce the Voting Rights Act and the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.

More specifically, during both this Administration and prior Administrations, the Civil Rights Division has filed lawsuits close to Election Day to remedy violations of all of the statutes it is responsible for enforcing, including the Voting Rights Act, the National Voter Registration Act, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, and the Help America Vote Act."

In what can only be perceived as something akin to a 2x4 upside the head, they point out that proof of such cases can be found on the department's own website.

They also state:

"As these cases show, in more than four decades of operation, the Civil Rights Division has never hesitated to fulfill its responsibilities by filing lawsuits to enforce federal voting rights laws that govern access to the polls and the administration of elections even on the very eve of Election Day. Against this backdrop, the Division’s recent failure to act in the case filed by a private party against the Ohio Secretary of State in which two federal courts, including the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, have specifically found that the Secretary of State is not complying with the verification requirements of Section 303 of HAVA, is difficult to fathom. Its similar lack of action in Wisconsin, where the state election board has also admitted that it is not complying with this provision of HAVA, is equally perplexing. This appears to be a dereliction of the Department’s obligations to enforce federal law."

In response to claims that such enforcement of the laws will somehow have a 'chilling effect' on voters, particularly minority voters, they rightly point out that "the only voters intimidated by strong enforcement of our
election laws are those behaving fraudulently."

So why isn't the Civil Rights Division doing its job? Numerous media reports and the campaign finance data on file with the Federal Elections Commission show that attorneys responsible for enforcing these laws are donors to Barack Obama's presidential campaign.

In a July speech at the “Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Symposium” in Columbia, SC, Muskasy pledged vigilance on the 2008 elections.

“Although instances of such fraud appear to be more the exception than the rule, the consequences of undeterred and undetected violations are potentially enormous. We’ve seen how close elections can be — and the fraudulent votes of even a small number can, in a close election, invalidate the votes of every other citizen who participated in the election. Whatever the exact numbers, even the prospect of vote fraud may undermine the integrity of the voting process. In a democratic society, even the perception of corruption or fraud has a damaging effect because it corrodes people’s faith in the democratic system.

Our task, then, is to support the greatest possible access to voting rights allowable under the law, and simultaneously to uphold the integrity of those rights through strong enforcement. In recent years, some have tried to suggest that these goals — protecting voting rights and protecting the integrity of elections — are somehow at odds. But they are really two sides of the same coin.

So what is he waiting for?

Voter access needs to be protected, but Democrats, like Jennifer Brunner, are using that principle as a political weapon, suggesting that any serious look at fraud is intended to "disenfranchise" voters - or denying that voter fraud even exists. This is a naked attempt to protect their friends at ACORN, who have been registering thousands of phony voters.

Congress put the voter fraud statutes on the books. The Attorney General and the Justice Department are obligated to enforce them.

Quote of the Day

(Friday FOIA will return after the election)

Columnist Thomas Sowell on the potential election of Sen. Barack Obama as president:

"Once the election is over, the glittering generalities of rhetoric and style will mean nothing."

Sowell's complete column.

Leftist plan to suppress votes: make the lines longer

This link was sent to me by a friend who wondered just what kind of person it takes to think this way.

In summary - Larry L. Burks, a poster a Democratic Underground, is suggesting that people who've already voted go and stand in line on election day, reasoning that if the lines are long, voters won't stick around to cast their ballots. The clincher? Do this in REPUBLICAN dominated polling areas.

Don't believe me? Here's what he wrote:

"Here are the rules.

You can only vote ones. It's the law of the land.

But there is nothing in the rule book that says that you can't wait in line for a long time and you can do it as many times as you like. It's fun. Some people really like it. Some people stand in lines so that they can meet other people. And talk.

If you spread your self out. It makes the line look twice as long.

This means that if have voted early. Or you vote early on election day.

You have got your vote in.

If you go to where you know that only Republicans live there.

That there are only Republicans waiting in line to vote.

If you go to one of these polling places. The people that turn around and go home will be Republicans.

This is fair play. Flood the Republican polling places on Election Day with people waiting in line.

Jam The Republicans polling places come election day.

There are a lot more of us than there is of them.

What am I asking you to do is.

Go to the city's suburbs. This is where they live. This is where they live in those 250,000 houses, and drive Cadillac and Humvee to work ever day. You know where there at. Find out where they go to vote at. Where their poling places are at.

Vote once. Vote early.

Go to where all of the Republicans vote at and Stand in line long and often. Stand in line long and often. And stand In line long and often. Make it an all day a fair. A all day sucker.

From sun up. To sun down. Kind of like protesting for all the crooked things that they have done to us over the past eight years.

An all day protest. The type of protest that really works. The type of protest that get results. It's the only kind of protest that works.

Ever time that you get to the front of the line.

You look down at your watch. The say. " Oh My! I left a cake backing in the oven at home. And I don't want it to burn. I've got to go home now. By all."

" I've been waiting in this dam line for five hours. I've got to go to the bath room". And leave.

Walk around the block. To the end of the line. And get back in the line again.

The trick is to make the line look as if it's going to take eight hours to get to the front.

The good thing about all of this is. You don't even have to be a registered voter to stand in line.

All of you people that got kicked off the registered voters list. Illegally.

It's pay back time."

And Democrats say Republicans try to suppress the vote! Democrats and Republicans and Independents should all repudiate such suggestions.

Records clerk faces discipline over running Joe the Plumber records

Just in from Toledo Police Chief Mike Navarre

PRESS RELEASE

Michael J. Navarre, Chief of Police

Toledo Police Records Clerk, Julie McConnell, has been charged with “Gross Misconduct” for allegedly making an improper inquiry into a state database in search of information pertaining to Samuel Wurzelbacher on October 16, 2008.

The record inquiry was made for a non-law enforcement purpose, which is a violation of both department policy and state policy governing the use of the Law Enforcement Automated Data System (LEADS) database.

Clerk McConnell was hired by the Toledo Police Department in April 1995. She is assigned to the Investigative Services Bureau and is a member of AFSCME Local 7.

Consistent with the bargaining agreement, a disciplinary hearing will be scheduled within the next ten days on a date and time mutually agreed upon by the City AFSCME Local 7.

No word on WHO she ran the records for...but we know it was for a member of the media.

Media made request for Joe the Plumber's records, Toledo mayor admits

Toledo Mayor Carty Finkbeiner admitted yesterday that a member of the media made the request of the Toledo Police Department for Joe 'the Plumber' Wurzelbacher's records, NewsTalk 1370 WSPD is reporting. The comments were made in response to questions during an unrelated press conference.

Finkbeiner did not say which news outlet, nor which reporter, made the request. He also did not identify the individual who ran the report.

As I've explained, accessing the LEADS computer data is a serious violation that can result in internal discipline, criminal charges and even loss of access for the law enforcement agency. Having overseen access to LEADS as the Clerk of Toledo Municipal Court, I know for a fact that Toledo Police Chief Mike Navarre knows who ran the report, when and where.

The sad part about this incident is that records from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles and all court records are public and can be obtained through regular public records requests, so there was no need to ask someone in the Police Department to violate rules and state law in order to get the information. The only advantage to having the LEADS report over the public records would be the speed with which it could be obtained.

But this certainly raises questions about how often this same media outlet or reporter has made similar requests in the past - and how they've used the data they obtained.

In related news: The director of the Ohio Department of Jobs & Family Services Director Helen Jones-Kelly, told the Columbus Dispatch that she approved a check on Wurzelbacher just after the Oct. 15 presidential debate to see whether he was current on child support payments.

She says there were no political reasons behind the decision, stating that the department often runs such checks on people - like when they win the lottery. That's a completely different matter, in which winnings can be taken to pay any back chid support that might be owed. A mention during a political debate should NOT result in a query, especially because at the time of the mention, there was nothing to indicate Joe was even married, or divorced, or had kids or even owed child support.

As for the approval not being political? According to OpenSecrets.org, Helen Jones-Kelley made the maximum donation of $2,300 to the Barack Obama presidential campaign on July 31, 2008.

H/T Riehl World

Move over Joe - Palestra.net reporters are the new targets of the left

If you've been following the issues of voter registration verification and voter fraud in Ohio on my blog, you'll recognize the names Tiffany Wilson and Shelby Holliday as reporters for Palestra.net, a college broadcast news service.

They've done tremendous work investigating and exposing out-of-state campaign workers who registered and cast ballots in Ohio, even though they are not eligible to do so. As a result of their inquiries, some of the ineligible voters have withdrawn both their registrations and ballots - but not all have done so.

Since posting the proof of voter fraud, there have been numerous searches on the individual names of these potentially fraudulent voters that ended up on my blog. The Ohio Democrat Party, and its supporters, seem to find my posts on voter fraud particularly interesting, as my tracking shows that they accessed these posts from emails they've received. And they're not taking the exposure well.

According to Greta Van Susteren's blog, GretaWire, these intrepid college reporters are being threatened by one of Sen. Barack Obama's campaign lawyers.

From the post:

So what is the students’ reward for exposing crime??? An intimidating letter from the Senator Obama campaign lawyer to one of the students?? See below and then you tell me…


From: Rosenberg, Thomas
Date: Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Subject: At least in today’s blog you spelled my last name right
To: tiffany

In other words, I am going to read what you write and watch what you say. Hopefully you will be fair and impartial as you told me you would be.

Thomas L. Rosenberg
Roetzel & Andress, LPA

Columbus, OH 43215
trosenberg@ralaw.com

and then there is this…a blogger on the Daily Kos I am told…investigating the student journalists???

and then there is this email below that was emailed to Palestra.net…WHO IS INVESTIGATING TIFFANY WILSON? and her “crime” is exposing crime???? huh??? WHO IS JOE KNAPP? PLEASE RESEARCH AND POST!

Subject: Attn: Tiffany Wilson
To:

Hello,

I’ve been looking into temporary residents registering to vote in
Ohio, and came across a _______ in _____ where four
voters are registered, one of whom Tiffany Wilson, your reporter, who
has returned an absentee ballot in Columbus. Is she a permanent
resident of Columbus?

Joe Knapp
Columbus

Rather than address the fact that some people supportive of Obama have registered and voted incorrectly, these Obama campaign workers want to demonize the individuals who've exposed them. Just like Joe the Plumber who, in asking a simple question of a presidential candidate who came into his neighborhood to campaign, ended up with various government agencies running illegal background checks on him.

Joe Knapp, as indicated above, seems inclined to challenge whether or not Tiffany Wilson is properly registered to cast a ballot in Ohio, since she's a student here. But Knapp had better be careful about going that route, considering the vast number of Ohio students liberal organizations have registered. If Wilson's not a valid Ohio voter, then none of those ACORN-registered students would be either...

The scary part of this whole scenario is the penchant for those on the left to attack the individuals sharing the truth with people. Silly me - I thought that's what the media was supposed to do.

To Tiffany and Shelby: keep up the good work! You know you're getting to them when they start attacking you personally. Also remember that when logic and reason no longer can support their positions, they resort to a personal attack. You two, and the rest of the Palestra.net reporters, are doing a great job!

Obama's definition of 'spread the wealth'

If you've wondered just what Sen. Barack Obama meant when he used the term 'spread the wealth,' this will answer your questions.

It's a radio interview Obama did in 2001 on Chicago public radio station WBEZ FM, but it's not being covered by the main stream media - and we no longer need to speculate why.

From the article:

"Speaking of the Warren Court its interpretation of the Constitution during the Civil Rights movement, Obama said, "It wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. At least as it's been interpreted and more important interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; says what the states can't do to you, what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the state government or federal government must do on your behalf."

Actually, it does. The federal government must provide for the common defense, a military to provide and ensure National Security. The "essential constraints" placed into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers was to ensure a limited government, not a pervasive and massive federal government providing all things to all people.

Obama laments in the interview that the Warren Supreme Court failed to reinterpret the Constitution to read into it what was not there: Redistribution of wealth for "political and economic justice in this society.""

For all the criticisms from the left about the right 'jumping to conclusions' and with their contortions in trying to defend Obama and his comments, I just don't see any defense to this recording, as there is no misinterpretation of his own, extended, explanation about redistribution.

The man actually believes it's a civil right to take from people who have things and give to people who don't - and to use the force of government to do so. And he seems to believe that this is inherent in the U.S. Constitution. What's also scary, to me, is not just that he believes it and is running on such a platform for the highest office in the country, but that he teaches/taught this as a law professor and the people of this country are embracing it.

Tom at BizzyBlog provides the following transcript:

OBAMA: You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the courts, I think where it succeeded was to get formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples -- so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order, and as long as I was able to pay for it I'd be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted. And one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which to bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.

..... Karen (Caller): The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn't terribly radical with economic changes. My question is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place?

Host: You mean the courts?

Karen: The courts, or would it be legislation at this point?

Obama: Maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. Y'know, the institution just isn't structured that way.

You look at very rare examples where during the desegregation era where the court, for example, was willing to, for example, order changes that cost money to local school districts, and the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, y'know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.

The court's just not very good at it, and politically it's very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So, I mean, I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, y'know I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. .....

State and local ballot issues

As the election is next week, I wanted to let you know of several websites that may be of interest as you consider the issues that will appear on the 2008 ballot.

We'll start local with the issue of the proposed study committee for the merger of Sylvania Township and the City of Sylvania. Proponents have establish the OneSylvania website. Opponents have named their website StopSylvaniaMerger. The City of Sylvania council has endorsed the merger study. The Sylvania Township Trustees have opposed the measure.

For the state-wide issues, you'll find no better source that Ballotpedia, which has a hub for Ohio, and includes a page on the 2008 ballot measures. The ballot measures page includes a listing of all the measures, including those that didn't make the ballot, and the laws on how initiatives and referendums are placed on the ballot. Clicking on the title of each issue will take you to a page detailing the measure and what opponents and proponents say about it.

Additionally, there is an endorsement page listing both media, blogger and organization recommendations on the Ohio issues.

Since this is a wiki, it is open for updating by anyone, so if you'd like to add a blogger or newspaper endorsement to the list - or provide additional information on the measures, please do so.

Voter Fraud: here's the evidence!

According to Tiffany Wilson at Palestra.net, Barack Obama campaign worker Zachary Cafritz registered to vote in Ohio on September 9, 2008 and he cast an early absentee ballot on October 4, 2008 in Franklin County.

He listed an Ohio address, but he is not the owner of that property. He does, however, own a "a nearly million dollar property within the Beltway" that he bought in February.

Wilson further documents the other Obama staffers who have not withdrawn their ballots and registrations, despite instructions from the campaign to do so.

"Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O'Brien sent a letter to each campaign reminding them that no one is entitled to register or vote in Ohio unless they are an Ohio resident. According to the Ohio Revised Code, an Ohio resident must live in the state for at least 30 days before the election and must also intend to remain in Ohio after the election.

Prompted by the letter, 13 Ohio Obama employees pulled their registration and ballots in Franklin County on Thursday. Included among the 13 were three spokespeople for the Obama campaign: Tom Reynolds, Olivia Alair and Isaac Baker. When I spoke with Tom Rosenberg, an attorney for the Obama campaign in Ohio, he said the rest of the 700 Ohio campaigners were instructed to act in accordance with Ohio law. I interpreted this to mean that all Obama employees who had registered in Ohio without the intent to live in Ohio after the election were instructed to withdraw their ballots.

This doesn't seem to be the case.

Yesterday, I found six more members of Obama's Ohio staff who registered and in some cases already voted in Franklin County. I contacted the Franklin County Board of Elections to see if they pulled their ballots. They did not. The individuals in question are Zachary Cafritz, Jay Tucker, David Muehlenkamp, Quentin James, Max Blachman and Stephanie Speirs."

Vote From Home staffers also did not withdraw their ballots.

"The three founders of Vote Today Ohio, an independent get-out-the-vote organization supporting Barack Obama, have not withdrawn their ballots either. Amy Little, Yolanda Hippensteele and Tate Hausman all registered and voted using a 1979 N. Fourth Ave., Columbus address. Hausman owns an apartment and has a wife in New York. Little is from Poughkeepsie and when I visited their address on Friday, a woman said she was out of town. Previously, a NY Post reporter called Little's Poughkeepsie address and a child answered saying Little would return "home" on Thursday. Hippsensteele recently moved from Massachusetts to East Bay, California for a job with Free Press."

Wilson also checked with the John McCain Campaign:

"No Ohio McCain campaigners have withdrawn their ballots. "We have consulted with elections officials and have written them to confirm that our staff meet all requirements of Ohio law and are legally registered to vote in the state," said Jon Seaton, McCain-Palin Regional Campaign Manager."

So we've got clear evidence of individuals who have come to Ohio on a temporary basis, have no intention of staying in the state past the election and its certification, who have homes and families in other states, who have registered and who have cast a ballot. Today, the boards of elections start separating the ballot envelope from the identification envelope, which means that after separated, these individuals can still be prosecuted for voting illegally, but there is no way to separate out their vote and not have it count.

Gov. Ted Strickland has stated that he would not support election reform legislation because he lacked evidence of fraudulent activity:

"If there are problems that can be documented and supported with evidence, I welcome those to be brought to me. But what I am aware of is a lot of talk about potential fraud or inappropriate behavior. But I really haven't seen any evidence that we should have any reason to question the reliability... of our election system." (Columbus Dispatch, 10/22/08)

"There is no evidence of voter fraud in Ohio and it offends me, quite frankly, that even some of the leaders within the Republican Party now are attempting to convey that impression in their criticism of Secretary Brunner and our voting system." (Gongwer News Service, 10/17/08)

Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner previously suggested evidence of election fraud in Ohio did not exist:

"There are a number of, basically, allegations that don't have any evidence to support them. There's much more conjecture than anything else." (MSNBC, 10/9/08)

Here's your evidence, Brunner and Strickland - now what are you going to do about it?

UPDATE: H/T from Brian at BearingDriftOhio.com:

"In Ohio we can't use government computers to check the ID of voters, but we can use them to investigate the personal history of someone in Toledo who asks Obama a revealing question.

This is just a taste of our future."

Who at TPD ran Joe the Plumber's records?

The Columbus Dispatch is reporting that several state databases may have been accessed illegally to obtain information on 'Joe the Plumber,' including one through the Toledo Police Department.

"The State Highway Patrol, which administers the Law Enforcement Automated Data System in Ohio, asked Toledo police to explain why it pulled BMV information on Wurzelbacher within 48 hours of the debate, Hunter said.

The LEADS system also can be used to check for warrants and criminal histories, but such checks would not be reflected on the records obtained by The Dispatch.

Sgt. Tim Campbell, a Toledo police spokesman, said he could not provide any information because the department only had learned of the State Highway Patrol inquiry today."

As the former Clerk of Toledo Municipal Court I was responsible for my office and employees' access of the LEADS (Law Enforcement Automated Data System) program. I was also a certified user. I can tell you that the restrictions on when and how it is used are limited and specific - and using it in an illegal manner is not only a criminal offense, it can result in an entire agency losing access to the system.

LEADS gives users access to multiple sources of data. It's used by law enforcement, courts and prosecutors across the state to inquire on information about driving records, vehicle ownership and outstanding warrants. Through the LEADS connections to other agencies, users can review drivers license images, past criminal histories or parole status. LEADS also serves as the gateway to the National Crime Information Center, (NCIC). Through NCIC, LEADS users have access to the same information on a national and international level.

Individuals having access to LEADS have to take a periodic test - the first question of which was always about proper use of the system. From the LEADS manual:

Data accessed through LEADS, NCIC, NLETS and other intra-state systems is restricted to the use of duly authorized law enforcement and/or criminal justice agencies and is not to be sold, transmitted or disseminated to any non-law enforcement agency, non-criminal justice agency or unauthorized person. Participating agencies have assumed responsibility for system security and integrity when they execute the LEADS participation agreement (LEADS Administrative Rule 4501:2-10-13).

Audit trails of all activity through the system are maintained for six years. Those audit trails are extremely detailed and identify the agency, the actual computer terminal, the user, the date/time, and the specific activity. While checks on warrants and criminal histories were not part of the public record available to The Dispatch, such activity was captured and included in the audit - and is known to the State Highway Patrol, who oversee the system, and to the Toledo Police Department now that's they've been made aware of the query.

The identify of the person who accessed the data is known and whoever it is should be held accountable. Additionally, I expect TPD will also want to know with whom the information was shared and how any other people might have used the data, including if it was used for a political purpose.

Having worked with TPD Chief Mike Navarre, I am confident this violation will be taken seriously and any unauthorized access will be appropriately punished. I call on him to share with the public what he finds out in his internal investigation and what action, if any, he takes.

HOPE ON #6 - Chicken Button

This is the sixth part of the HOPE ON project with help from NeverFindOut.org

Leadership requires the ability to make a decision.

To register a vote in the Illinois General Assembly, lawmakers have a choice of three buttons on their desk. The "yes" button is green. The "no" button is red, and the "present" button is yellow, says Rich Miller, who writes and publishes The Capitol Fax, a daily newsletter and blog on Illinois politics.

"There's a saying in Springfield that there's a reason why the present button is yellow," Miller says. (source)

Chicken Button Video Transcript:

MAN: Senator Obama, you tell us you’re ready to lead America? Why didn’t you choose to lead Illinois? Do you remember the three buttons that were in front of you in the Senate? The green button for Yes, the red button for No, and the one you used one hundred and twenty nine times: the “Chicken Button”. Why, Senator, were you so consistently afraid to take a stand?

ANNOUNCER: What happens when we elect a Senator who loves the Chicken Button? Please, America, let’s never find out.

During his speech announcing his run for president, Obama said:

"What's stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics - the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions,"

That's what he said. What he did is a bit different. According to the New York Times, as an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama voted 'present' 130 times.

"An examination of Illinois records shows at least 36 times when Mr. Obama was either the only state senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way."

Interestingly, many of the votes were politically sensitive. At times, Obama was the only lawmaker voting "present" on bills winning near unanimous support, even on issues he supported and on one he actually sponsored.

His record shows a number of occasions when Obama avoided making hard choices - on votes that reflect the officeholder's core values.

For example, in 1997, Obama voted "present" on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion. He also voted "present" on SB 71, which lowered the first offense of carrying a concealed weapon from a felony to a misdemeanor and raised the penalty of subsequent offenses.

In 1999, Obama voted "present" on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52-1. Also in 1999, Obama voted "present" on HB 854 that protected the privacy of sex-abuse victims by allowing petitions to have the trial records sealed. He was the only member to not support the bill.

In 2001, Obama voted "present" on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted "present" on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if it survived a failed abortion. In his book, the Audacity of Hope, on page 132, Obama explained his problems with the "born alive" bills, specifically arguing that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. But he failed to mention that he only felt strongly enough to vote "present" on the bills instead of "no."

And finally in 2001, Obama voted "present" on SB 609, a bill prohibiting strip clubs and other adult establishments from being within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, and daycares.

If Obama had taken a position for or against these bills, he would have pleased some constituents and alienated others. Instead, the Illinois legislator-turned-U.S. senator and, now, Democratic presidential hopeful essentially took a pass. (source)

Obama and his campaign defend the 'present' votes as being due to concerns about certain provisions of the bill or questions about constitutionality. But a 'no' vote would have worked just as well - except it wouldn't have given him political cover.

In the White House, there isn't a yellow button, but there is something similar. A president can decide to do nothing, but that's not leadership and such lack of decisiveness can result in disastrous consequences. This is not something I want to risk, so let's never find out.

HOPE ON #5 - Pork

With the fifth installment of the HOPE ON project (NeverFindOut.org) focused on pork, it's no surprise to find Porkopolis taking on the subject of Obama on Earmarks.

Mario provides all the details and the documentation of Sen. Barack Obama's requests for spending and then highlights the hypocrisy when the candidate "conveniently called for a hiatus on earmarks during the Presidential campaign."

Haven't we had enough of presidents who say one thing during a campaign only to have them do another once they're in office? Let's never find out if we'll suffer the same fate under Obama.

Blackeye State

"Welcome to Ohio - where a voter-fraud brush fire is making the Buckeye State into the Blackeye State, thanks to Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner."

That's what Peter Bronson writes in the Cincinnati Enquirer article, "Blackeye State, thanks to Brunner," and then he details why.

And if the court cases and voter registration verification problems weren't enough, our partisan Secretary of State has issued her 100th directive - and she's not even finished with her 10th month in office.

"Jennifer Brunner has every elections official in the state swimming in red tape," said Ohio Republican Party Deputy Chairman Kevin DeWine in a press release. "One of the major newspapers called her a micro-meddler several months ago. She's been out to prove it ever since."

Brunner's latest round of micro-management instructs election administrators on what to do with absentee ballots cast by voters whose registrations don't match up with federal and state databases.

"This is the same mismatch information Brunner has so far failed to provide to county election administrators," said DeWine. "At this point she's telling elections officials what to do with information she hasn't even provided them. Until she releases the 200,000 questionable registrations on file in her office, this directive is worthless."

By comparison, Brunner's predecessor, Ken Blackwell, had only issued 42 directives by October 25, 2004, the first presidential election with the new voting machines.

But the reason she's doing this all for the local boards of elections:

"My first concern is for the boards of elections because they are on the ground, in the trenches, doing the work with the voters, and if i have to be the lightning rod for the boards of elections so they can be left alone undisturbed, then so be it." (Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC, 10/17/08)

Sadly, the only time Brunner has left Ohio's election officials alone and undisturbed is when they ask for a system of validating thousands of potentially fraudulent registrations.

In the same press release, Ohio Republican Party Chairman Bob Bennett said:

"These board members are outraged by her attempts to keep them from doing their jobs. Secretary Brunner has done nothing but scare, intimidate and stonewall Ohio's hard-working election officials, and her record of disrespect for them and their work is well-documented."

But then our governor, Ted Strickland, weighs in on the issue and says he sees "no evidence" of election fraud here in Ohio. I guess he missed the following:

* A Democrat activist group with strong ties to Barack Obama has publicly testified that its members engage in election fraud right here in Ohio - possibly submitting thousands of fraudulent registrations. (The Plain Dealer, 10/7/08)

* The same group, ACORN, is accused of illegally giving cash and cigarettes to get an Ohio man to register to vote 72 times over an 18-month period. (New York Post, 10/11/08)

* Hamilton County election officials say at least 10,000 duplicate registrations have been submitted and possibly "thousands of fictitious ones." (Cincinnati Enquirer, 10/10/08)

* One man admitted ACORN convinced him to register multiple times and cast a bogus ballot with a fake address. (New York Post, 10/13/08)

* At least 13 college students are under investigation by the Franklin County prosecutor for violating residency requirements to cast illegal ballots. (Columbus Dispatch, 10/16/08)

* and all of the videos on Ohio and voter fraud being done by Shelby Holliday and Tiffany Wilson at Palestra.net.

This is an embarrassing way to run an election and it does, indeed, give Ohio a black eye.

"Well, I tell you what, it helps in Ohio that we've got Democrats in charge of the machines." ~ Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama (Columbus Dispatch)