Category Archives: Ohio voters

Hamilton County Ohio voter fraud, Voting twice, Absentee provisional ballot confusion, Out of state voters, Typical of Ohio and US?, “I’ll fight it for Mr. Obama”

Hamilton County Ohio voter fraud, Voting twice, Absentee provisional ballot confusion, Out of state voters, Typical of Ohio and US?, “I’ll fight it for Mr. Obama”

“An additional 2,735 were cast by people who elections officials believe were not registered in Ohio”…The Columbus Dispatch Nov. 21, 2012

“Eighty-one voters in Hamilton County, Ohio, cast more than one ballot in the Nov. 6 election, officials said, bringing calls for investigation and prosecution.”...UPI Nov. 21, 2012

“It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes”…Joseph Stalin

From  the National Review February 8, 2013.

“The Voter Fraud That ‘Never Happens’ Keeps Coming Back”
“Critics of voter ID and other laws cracking down on voter fraud claim they’re unnecessary because fraud is nonexistent. For instance, Brennan Center attorneys Michael Waldman and Justin Levitt claimed last year: “A person casting two votes risks jail time and a fine for minimal gain. Proven voter fraud, statistically, happens about as often as death by lightning strike.”

Well, lightning is suddenly all over Cincinnati, Ohio. The Hamilton County Board of Elections is investigating 19 possible cases of alleged voter fraud that occurred when Ohio was a focal point of the 2012 presidential election. A total of 19 voters and nine witnesses are part of the probe.

Democrat Melowese Richardson has been an official poll worker for the last quarter century and registered thousands of people to vote last year. She candidly admitted to Cincinnati’s Channel 9 this week that she voted twice in the last election.”

“Richardson insists she has done nothing wrong and promises to contest the charges: “I’ll fight it for Mr. Obama and for Mr. Obama’s right to sit as president of the United States.””

Read more:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340174/voter-fraud-never-happens-keeps-coming-back-john-fund

From Citizen Wells November 27, 2012.

“Over 300,000 ballots were being processed recently in Ohio. 204,927 provisional ballots and 119,535 absentee ballots.”

“Eighty-one voters in Hamilton County, Ohio, cast more than one ballot in the Nov. 6 election, officials said, bringing calls for investigation and prosecution.

The disclosure came as the Hamilton County Board of Elections agreed to count nearly 15,000 provisional and absentee ballots which could potentially change the outcome of several local ballot measures, The Columbus Dispatch reported Wednesday.

Election board staffers reported 63 voters cast both an early absentee ballot and a provisional ballot on Election Day, and 18 others voted twice on Nov. 6, typically by casting a regular vote in one precinct and a provisional ballot in another.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/ohio-canvass-vote-certification-november-27-2012-provisional-ballots-counted-and-counted-correctly-hamilton-county-voter-fraud-double-votes-ohio-audit-trustworthy/

From Citizen Wells November 21, 2012.

“Franklin County Ohio, containing Columbus, was one of the counties in Ohio that went for Obama by a large margin.

Obama 325,654     60.1%

Romney 207,941  39.1%

If Franklin County is any indication, the elections in Ohio cannot be trusted.

From The Columbus Dispatch November 21, 2012.

“New Albany schools await provisional ballot count”

“New Albany schools officials must continue to wait to find out whether their combined bond issue and tax levy passed.

Yesterday, the Franklin County Board of Elections told workers to begin opening and scanning most of the 29,751 provisional ballots cast in the Nov. 6 election, but they can’t be counted until the board decides what to do with the rest of the ballots.

Work began yesterday on 20,545 ballots that election officials believe were cast correctly. They are awaiting a response from other county boards to determine whether 2,438 more ballots, which were cast by voters registered elsewhere in Ohio, are valid.

An additional 2,735 were cast by people who elections officials believe were not registered in Ohio, and 1,849 were cast by people voting in both the wrong precinct and polling location. Other categories of provisional votes are also under review, election officials said.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/11/21/franklin-county-ohio-reveals-ohio-voting-problems-tens-of-thousands-of-ballots-in-question-provisional-ballots-2735-cast-by-non-ohio-citizens-audit-oh-votes/

Unemployment initial claims January 3, 2013, 372000 claims, Up 10 thousand, 21 states with increases over 1000, Carma for Ohio with Layoffs in the automobile and manufacturing industries

Unemployment initial claims January 3, 2013, 372000 claims, Up 10 thousand, 21 states with increases over 1000, Carma for Ohio with Layoffs in the automobile and manufacturing industries

“With a 63.7% labor force participation, “conditions in the labor market are considerably worse than indicated” in July’s report”…economist Joshua Shapiro, WSJ August 3, 2012

“We tried our plan—and it worked. That’s the difference. That’s the choice in this election. That’s why I’m running for a second term.”…Barack Obama

“the Times of the nineteenth of December had published the official forecasts of the output of various classes of consumption goods in the fourth quarter of 1983, which was also the sixth quarter of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. Today’s issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston’s job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones.”…George Orwell, “1984″

The Unemployment Initial Claims Report for January 3, 2013 was released this morning. 21 states had increases over 1000. Of the top 12 states with claims increases, all but one went for Obama in 2012 and all had initial claims over 2,000. Ohio had the largest increase of 8,795.

I refer to this as Carma.

From the US Labor Department January 3, 2013.

“In the week ending December 29, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 372,000, an increase of 10,000 from the previous week’s revised figure of 362,000. The 4-week moving average was 360,000, an increase of 250 from the previous week’s revised average of 359,750.”

STATES WITH AN INCREASE OF MORE THAN 1,000


State Change State Supplied Comment
OH +8,795 Layoffs in the automobile and manufacturing industries.
MI +6,641 Layoffs in the manufacturing industry.
PA +5,530 Layoffs in the entertainment and accommodations, and food service industries.
KY +4,745 No comment.
MA +4,330 Layoffs in the educational services, construction, transportation, retail, food service and manufacturing industries.
NJ +3,710 Layoffs in the educational services, construction, manufacturing, and real estate and rental industries.
IL +3,445 Layoffs in the construction and manufacturing industries.
VA +3,366 No comment.
WI +2,833 No comment.
NY +2,401 Layoffs in the construction, food service, professional, scientific, and technical service industries.
CT +2,084 No comment.
WA +2,008 Layoffs in the agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and construction industries.
IA +1,648 Layoffs in construction and manufacturing industries.
NC +1,394 Layoffs in the business services and construction industries.
MD +1,353 No comment.
MO +1,311 Layoffs in the accommodation and food service industries.
OK +1,198 No comment.
IN +1,175 Layoffs in the construction and transportation manufacturing industries.
OR +1,150 Layoffs in seasonal industries.
AR +1,092 No comment.
TN +1,030 Layoffs in the administrative and supporting service, food service, specialty trade contractors, metal, and construction industries.

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/eta20122533.htm#.UOXh8W_7LhI

Ohio stimulus fraud discovered by inspector general audit, Ohio election fraud revealed by audit?, Ohio 2012 election certification includes absentee and provisional ballots

Ohio stimulus fraud discovered by inspector general audit, Ohio election fraud revealed by audit?, Ohio 2012 election certification includes absentee and provisional ballots

“What do you think a stimulus is? It’s spending – that’s the whole point! Seriously.”…Barack Obama

“An additional 2,735 were cast by people who elections officials believe were not registered in Ohio”…The Columbus Dispatch Nov. 21, 2012

“It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes”…Joseph Stalin

From The Columbus Dispatch November 27, 2012.

“$255K in stimulus spending questioned by Ohio inspector general”

“than a quarter million dollars in federal stimulus money administered by a state agency may have been improperly spent, the Ohio inspector general found in a report released today.

The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services Office of Workforce Development “failed to adequately oversee” a $1 million federal grant for a jobs training initiative for southwest Ohio and $255,000 in spending was questioned by the inspector general.

The grant was used to pay cell phone bills, buy gift cards and rent an office from the company – shut down after it didn’t pay taxes – of a man on the board of the agency overseeing the grant, the probe found. The president of the group managing the grant got a salary that would have had her working 15.5 hours a day, seven days a week, investigators discovered. And more than $75,000 in wages were improperly documented.”

http://dispatchpolitics.dispatch.com/content/blogs/the-daily-briefing/2012/11/27-november-2012—odjfs-ig-report.html

After processing over 300,000 absentee and provisional ballots the Ohio 2012 election results were supposed to be certified yesterday, November 27, 2012. Some of the counties checked appear to have completed their counts.

From Citizen Wells November 27, 2012.

“Over 300,000 ballots were being processed recently in Ohio. 204,927 provisional ballots and 119,535 absentee ballots.

http://www2.sos.state.oh.us/pls/enrpublic/f?p=212:52:653548358565003::NO:::

How many provisional ballots were discarded?

The Ohio canvass for vote certification is supposed to end today.

Excessive confusion has abounded in Ohio due to most registered voters being sent absentee ballots and voter registration mismatches. Documented voter fraud and mistakes have been documented in many counties. Will the Ohio audit remedy this?

Here is another example of voter fraud or malfeasance.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/ohio-canvass-vote-certification-november-27-2012-provisional-ballots-counted-and-counted-correctly-hamilton-county-voter-fraud-double-votes-ohio-audit-trustworthy/

Hopefully the 2012 election audits in Ohio will be as vigilant as the Inspector General.

From Citizen Wells November 22, 2012.

“Ohio Secretary of State Directive 2012-56, 2012 post election audits.

DIRECTIVE 2012-56
November 20, 2012
To: All County Boards of Elections
Directors, Deputy Directors, and Board Members
Re: Post-Election Audits
SUMMARY
In 2009, the previous administration entered into a settlement agreement in the case of League of Women Voters, et al. v. Brunner [formerly Blackwell], N.D. Ohio No. 3:05-cv-7309. As explained in Advisory 2009-09, the League of Women Voters settlement agreement requires that county boards of elections conduct post-election audits of all ballots cast following general elections in even-numbered years and following presidential primary elections.
POST-ELECTION AUDIT PROCEDURES

A. Timeline

Each board of elections must conduct a post-election audit beginning no sooner than six days after the official certification of election results by the board of elections, unless there is an automatic recount (declared by the Board or, in the case of a multi-county district election, declared by the Secretary of State) or the board of elections has received a valid application for a recount. If a recount is conducted, the post-election audit shall begin immediately after the Board certifies the results of the recount. A board of elections must not conduct the audit before the Board’s certification of its official canvass of the election.
The Board must complete the post-election audit between the seventh day after the Board declares its official certification and the 28th day after the Secretary of State declares the official certification in a statewide election.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/ohio-2012-election-audit-november-20-2012-post-election-audit-procedures-secretary-of-state-directive-2012-56-absentee-military-ballots/

 

Ohio canvass vote certification November 27, 2012, Provisional ballots counted and counted correctly?, Hamilton County voter fraud double votes, Ohio audit trustworthy?

Ohio canvass vote certification November 27, 2012, Provisional ballots counted and counted correctly?, Hamilton County voter fraud double votes, Ohio audit trustworthy?

“An additional 2,735 were cast by people who elections officials believe were not registered in Ohio”…The Columbus Dispatch Nov. 21, 2012

“Eighty-one voters in Hamilton County, Ohio, cast more than one ballot in the Nov. 6 election, officials said, bringing calls for investigation and prosecution.”...UPI Nov. 21, 2012

“It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes”…Joseph Stalin

Over 300,000 ballots were being processed recently in Ohio. 204,927 provisional ballots and 119,535 absentee ballots.

http://www2.sos.state.oh.us/pls/enrpublic/f?p=212:52:653548358565003::NO:::

How many provisional ballots were discarded?

The Ohio canvass for vote certification is supposed to end today.

Excessive confusion has abounded in Ohio due to most registered voters being sent absentee ballots and voter registration mismatches. Documented voter fraud and mistakes have been documented in many counties. Will the Ohio audit remedy this?

Here is another example of voter fraud or malfeasance.

From UPI November  21, 2012.

“Eighty-one voters in Hamilton County, Ohio, cast more than one ballot in the Nov. 6 election, officials said, bringing calls for investigation and prosecution.

The disclosure came as the Hamilton County Board of Elections agreed to count nearly 15,000 provisional and absentee ballots which could potentially change the outcome of several local ballot measures, The Columbus Dispatch reported Wednesday.

Election board staffers reported 63 voters cast both an early absentee ballot and a provisional ballot on Election Day, and 18 others voted twice on Nov. 6, typically by casting a regular vote in one precinct and a provisional ballot in another.

The double votes would not have changed the outcome of any election in Hamilton County, which includes the city of Cincinnati and where 420,000 votes were cast, the newspaper said.

“This is a dangerous situation,” elections board member and county Republican Chairman Alex Triantafilou said, noting 81 people “thought it appropriate to go and vote twice,” a situation meriting a possible referral to the county prosecutor’s office.”

Read more:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/11/21/81-Ohioans-voted-twice-board-discloses/UPI-80351353531538/#ixzz2DRBgqME7

Ohio 2012 election audit, November 20, 2012, Post election audit procedures, Secretary of State Directive 2012-56, Absentee military ballots?

Ohio 2012 election audit, November 20, 2012, Post election audit procedures, Secretary of State Directive 2012-56, Absentee military ballots?

“An additional 2,735 were cast by people who elections officials believe were not registered in Ohio”…The Columbus Dispatch Nov. 21, 2012

“If the voter turnout in Ohio matches the 2008 level of 67 percent, some 5,226,000 votes would be cast. Under that scenario, 250,000 provisional ballots would amount to 4.8 percent of the entire vote — well over the current difference between the two candidates, according to RealClearPolitics poll average.”…NewsMax Nov. 1, 2012

“It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes”…Joseph Stalin

Ohio Secretary of State Directive 2012-56, 2012 post election audits.

DIRECTIVE 2012-56
November 20, 2012
To: All County Boards of Elections
Directors, Deputy Directors, and Board Members
Re: Post-Election Audits
SUMMARY
In 2009, the previous administration entered into a settlement agreement in the case of League of Women Voters, et al. v. Brunner [formerly Blackwell], N.D. Ohio No. 3:05-cv-7309. As explained in Advisory 2009-09, the League of Women Voters settlement agreement requires that county boards of elections conduct post-election audits of all ballots cast following general elections in even-numbered years and following presidential primary elections.
POST-ELECTION AUDIT PROCEDURES

A. Timeline

Each board of elections must conduct a post-election audit beginning no sooner than six days after the official certification of election results by the board of elections, unless there is an automatic recount (declared by the Board or, in the case of a multi-county district election, declared by the Secretary of State) or the board of elections has received a valid application for a recount. If a recount is conducted, the post-election audit shall begin immediately after the Board certifies the results of the recount. A board of elections must not conduct the audit before the Board’s certification of its official canvass of the election.
The Board must complete the post-election audit between the seventh day after the Board declares its official certification and the 28th day after the Secretary of State declares the official certification in a statewide election.

B. Observers

The post-election audit must be open to the public and to duly appointed observers. Each board of elections must give public notice of the time and place of the post-election audit in the same manner that the Board notifies the public of a board of elections meeting.

1. Throughout the audit, ballots may be handled only by boards of elections members, directors, deputy directors, or other designated employees of the Board. No other person, including an observer, may handle a ballot under any circumstances.

2. Any entity having appointed observers pursuant to R.C. 3505.21 or 3505.32(B) (referred to herein as “statutory observers”) may appoint observers to the post-election audit no later than five days after the Board gives notice of the date and time of the post-election audit in accordance with this directive. Substitutes may be appointed if notice of substitution is made in writing and filed with the board of elections at least one day before the post-election audit begins.

3. The general public may observe the post-election audit and, to the extent practicable, must be given the same access as statutory observers, subject to the limitations in B4. Observers are permitted to observe the selection process and to observe the count.

4. Depending on the number of individuals who may be appointed or desire to observe the post-election audit and the available resources of the Board (i.e., physical space, number of counting stations, etc.), the Board may limit the number of observers. However, statutory observers must be allowed to participate regardless of Board resources. If the Board must limit the number of observers, at least two members of the general public, randomly selected from those expressing an interest to observe must also be allowed to observe the audit. As a general rule, Boards must do their best to accommodate the
general public to the extent practicable.

5. Representatives of the media are permitted to attend any portion of the post-election audit.

C. Preparations for the Post-Election Audit

1. After Election Day, the Secretary of State will randomly select at least one other statewide contest to be included in the post-election audit in addition to the “top of the ticket” contest (e.g., President). Further, in addition to any contest selected by the Secretary of State, the board of elections must randomly select at least one other contest (candidate contest or question/issue contest), preferably from the universe of all countywide contests, unless circumstances (i.e., no, or only one, countywide contest) necessitate the selection of some other contest. The Board shall exclude any contest in which the number of candidates for that contest (including eligible write-in candidates)
does not exceed the number of candidates to be elected or nominated in that contest.

2. At the time the Board meets to certify the official results of the election (or within ten days of certification, if the Board has already met to certify the official results, the Board should determine whether it will conduct its post-election audit by precinct, by polling place, or by individual voting machine
1 (herein collectively referred to as “units to be  audited”); the date and location that the selection of units to be audited will take place; and the date and place that the audit will commence. It is preferable to audit the smallest unit available to the Board. A Board should conduct a post-election audit by polling
place only if, on Election Day, the voting machines in a multiple-precinct polling place were not precinct-specific (i.e., a voter could cast his or her ballot on any voting machine in the multiple-precinct polling place without regard to the precinct in which the voter was registered to vote).

3. On the date the Board selects the units to be audited, the Board must randomly select a sufficient number of units to be audited until the number of votes cast (machine public count) on all selected units to be audited equals at least 5% of the total number of votes cast for the county (countywide voter turnout).

a. If the Board is auditing by precinct, and the randomly selected precinct’s public count is greater than or equal to 5%, the Board must randomly select an additional precinct to be audited.

b. If the Board is auditing by polling place, and the public count from the selected polling place is greater than or equal to 5%, the Board must randomly select an additional polling place to be audited.
Note: While it is reasonable for the Board to organize its materials and ballots
between the date the selection is made and the date the audit begins (i.e., it
may take time to sort through comingled absentee ballots to segregate those
from the selected precincts, etc.), the Board should both allow observers to be
present during these preparations and should take great care to prevent a preaudit from inadvertently taking place, either in fact or in perception, before the actual audit.

4. In General:

a. When determining the public count, the Board must include all relevant categories of ballots, including regular ballots (VVPAT and/or optical scan paper ballots), counted provisional ballots (whether cast in person before, or on, Election Day), and counted absentee ballots of all types for the precinct or polling place. The Board is permitted to open sealed VVPAT canisters for the purpose of conducting the post-election audit, even if there is not a recount in the precinct.

b. If absentee ballots are accumulated and reported as a single precinct, then the Board must conduct the audit using defined batches of absentee ballots equaling 5% of all absentee ballots cast. If the ballots are not already kept as defined batches, the Board must first batch the ballots into batches of 50 and then randomly select batches equaling 5% of all absentee ballots cast.

c. Selection of units to be audited must be random (meaning that each possible unit to be audited has the same chance of being selected). The Board need not follow any particular method to ensure random selection of units to be audited. The casting of differently colored multi-sided die (with each die representing a different numeral in the precinct number) or drawing numbered slips of paper from a transparent container are both acceptable methods.

d. A board of elections may choose to audit a universe greater than 5%. For contests where the margin is above the statutory threshold for an automatic recount but is close, selecting a greater percentage of ballots to be audited is advisable.

e. Elections records generally are public records and must be available for public inspection, including to observers during a post-election audit. Records that may be of interest to observers, and that should be available for inspection, include documents that show the number of ballots ordered and received by the Board; the number of ballots that were voted, remade, spoiled, and uncounted; the number of absentee and provisional ballots issued, returned, validated, and invalidated; poll worker and board reconciliation sheets; and chain of custody logs.

D. Conducting the Post-Election Audit

This Directive requires the use of either a simple, percentage-based post-election audit or a “risk-limiting audit.” Risk-limiting audits are recommended. For more information about risk-limiting audits, go to http://cuyahogaelectionaudits.com/audit/post-election/risklimiting.
2 If you have questions about risk-limiting audits, please contact Matt Damschroder or Matt Masterson in the Elections Division.

1. The post-election audit must be conducted by teams of elections officials equally divided among the state’s two major political parties (e.g., 2, 4, 6, etc.).

2. A post-election audit team of at least two election officials must compare the total number of votes cast in the contests being audited to the number of voters listed in the poll book, poll list or signature poll book. If more votes appear for a particular contest in a precinct (including precincts contained in multi-precinct polling locations) than the number of marked names in the poll book, poll list or signature poll book (indicating which electors voted, including absentee and provisional voters), such discrepancy must be documented.

3. Ballots must be checked to verify that each contest has been properly identified on the ballot. Observers and members of the public may observe the inspection of the ballots but may not handle ballots.
Note: “Ballot” refers to both:

• A paper ballot that is optically scanned and counted at the precinct polling
place or centrally tabulated, and
• The Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) produced by any Direct
Recording Electronic (DRE) touch screen voting machine.

4. For each contest to be audited, the Board must physically examine and hand count the ballots for each randomly selected unit to be audited and must hand count the votes cast on the ballots. The Board then must compare the hand count to the recorded electronic summary of the votes contained in the official certification of the votes for that contest in that precinct or polling location. The Board must make a record of the comparison for each precinct (including precincts contained in a polling location if conducting the audit by polling place) included in the post-election audit. The Board shall document this process using the audit reporting work book.
Note: If any comparison of the hand count and official certification tally as noted above results in a difference between the hand count and the official certified tally, the Board must determine if a mistake occurred in the hand count. If the Board determines that no hand-counting mistake occurred, the hand count of the ballots shall be taken to be the accurate count. The Board shall provide written notification to the Secretary of State of any such discrepancy.

5. At the conclusion of the post-election audit, the Board must calculate the individual accuracy rate of each contest included in the audit by taking the sum of any discrepancies for each contest audited and dividing it by the sum of all ballots audited for that contest, then subtracting the resulting number from 100 to return the accuracy rate as a percentage.

Note: The Board should use the absolute value of each discrepancy so that offsetting discrepancies (a one vote gain and a one vote loss) do not net out as zero discrepancies.

6. A county is required to escalate the audit if its accuracy rate is less than 99.5% in a contest with a certified margin that is at least 1% (calculated as a percentage of ballots cast on which the contest appeared), or less than 99.8% in a contest with a certified margin that is smaller than 1%. Escalation entails drawing a second random sample of at least 5% of votes cast, selected from units that were not audited in the original sample, and auditing the ballots (using the same procedures) with respect to any such contest. If, after the second round of auditing, the accuracy rate from the two samples is below 99.5%, the county shall investigate the cause of the discrepancy and report its findings to
the Secretary of State’s Office within the same time for completing the post election audit. In such cases, the Secretary of State’s Office may require a 100% hand-count.

E. Reporting Results after the Post-Election Audit is Complete

If the post-election audit results in change of vote totals reported in the official canvass, the Board shall amend its certification of the official results of the affected contest and submit it to the Secretary of State within the time limits set forth in this directive, in the same manner required for making of the original official declaration of the result of such election, pursuant to R.C. 3505.32(A).
After a board of elections has completed its post-election audit, the Board must file the following with the Secretary of State’s Office:

1. All final results from the audit using the audit reporting work book; and
2. If vote totals in the randomly selected contest change, a certified amended abstract that shows both:

a. The votes cast in each precinct in the county in which the contest was submitted to electors, and
b. The votes of the precincts in which the ballots were audited as shown by the audit documents.

Boards must transmit their post-election audit results no later than five days after completion of the post-election audit to Kathy Malott at the Secretary of State’s Office:

• via fax: (614) 485-7590 (include a cover sheet), or
• via email: kmalott@ohiosecretaryofstate.gov (subject: Post-Election Audit)

If you have any questions regarding this Directive, please contact the Secretary of State election’s attorney assigned to your county at (614) 466-2585.

Sincerely,
Jon Husted

Click to access Dir2012-56.pdf

Citizen Wells: I am conducting my own audit. The vast numbers of provisional ballots generated by sending out so many absentee ballots and by  registered voter status confusion are  a concern. Possibly of more concern is the drop in military absentee votes.

Franklin County Ohio reveals Ohio voting problems, Tens of thousands of ballots in question, Provisional ballots, 2735 cast by non Ohio citizens, Audit OH votes

Franklin County Ohio reveals Ohio voting problems, Tens of thousands of ballots in question, Provisional ballots, 2735 cast by non Ohio citizens, Audit OH votes

“An additional 2,735 were cast by people who elections officials believe were not registered in Ohio”…The Columbus Dispatch Nov. 21, 2012

“If the voter turnout in Ohio matches the 2008 level of 67 percent, some 5,226,000 votes would be cast. Under that scenario, 250,000 provisional ballots would amount to 4.8 percent of the entire vote — well over the current difference between the two candidates, according to RealClearPolitics poll average.”…NewsMax Nov. 1, 2012

“It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes”…Joseph Stalin

There are 2 state elections that should be, without a doubt, audited. Florida and Ohio.

Franklin County Ohio, containing Columbus, was one of the counties in Ohio that went for Obama by a large margin.

Obama 325,654     60.1%

Romney 207,941  39.1%

If Franklin County is any indication, the elections in Ohio cannot be trusted.

From The Columbus Dispatch November 21, 2012.

“New Albany schools await provisional ballot count”

“New Albany schools officials must continue to wait to find out whether their combined bond issue and tax levy passed.

Yesterday, the Franklin County Board of Elections told workers to begin opening and scanning most of the 29,751 provisional ballots cast in the Nov. 6 election, but they can’t be counted until the board decides what to do with the rest of the ballots.

Work began yesterday on 20,545 ballots that election officials believe were cast correctly. They are awaiting a response from other county boards to determine whether 2,438 more ballots, which were cast by voters registered elsewhere in Ohio, are valid.

An additional 2,735 were cast by people who elections officials believe were not registered in Ohio, and 1,849 were cast by people voting in both the wrong precinct and polling location. Other categories of provisional votes are also under review, election officials said.

The board will meet again today to make a determination on the remaining ballots, and the actual vote count can begin. But the Thanksgiving holiday means it will be at least Monday before the board has an unofficial tally.

The final, official count of votes is to be complete on Tuesday.

At issue is the 87-vote margin of victory — not counting provisional ballots — held by the New Albany schools in its $45 million bond issue and 4.24-mill operating levy.

A Dispatch analysis found that 666 voters cast provisional ballots at sites where the tax request was on the ballot. It’s possible that not all of those ballots were from school-district voters, however, because they include votes from polling sites with voters who also live outside the district.

If even half the provisional ballots are from district voters and deemed valid, it could swing the decision or trigger a recount. Ohio law requires a recount when the margin is less than half a percentage point.

Elections Board members also struggled to decide what to do about 44 people who signed a poll book on Election Day, signifying they were cleared to vote on a machine, but who also cast provisional ballots.

Election workers told the board that the people might have gotten as far as signing their names before telling a poll worker about a recent address or name change, and were then asked to vote provisionally. There’s no way to determine whether they both cast an electronic ballot and filled out a provisional ballot, however.

The board voted to ask the secretary of state’s office for guidance in the matter, as no one on staff could remember a similar situation.

Board members will consider the matter again at today’s meeting.”

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/11/21/new-albany-schools-await-provisional-ballot-count.html

Ohio races undecided, Absentee and provisional ballots create nightmare, To count or not to count that is the question, Military votes counted?

Ohio races undecided, Absentee and provisional ballots create nightmare, To count or not to count that is the question, Military votes counted?

“Late last night Congressman West maintained a district wide lead of nearly 2000 votes until the St. Lucie County Supervisor of Elections “recounted” thousands of early ballots. Following that “recount” Congressman West trailed by 2,400 votes. In addition, there were numerous other disturbing irregularities reported at polls across St. Lucie County including the doors to polling places being locked when the polls closed in direct violation of Florida law, thereby preventing the public from witnessing the procedures used to tabulate results. The St. Lucie County Supervisor of Elections office clearly ignored proper rules and procedures, and the scene at the Supervisor’s office last night could only be described as complete chaos. Given the hostility and demonstrated incompetence of the St. Lucie County Supervisor of Elections, we believe it is critical that a full hand recount of the ballots take place in St. Lucie County. We will continue to fight to ensure every vote is counted properly and fairly, and accordingly we will pursue all legal means necessary.”…Allen West campaign

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984″

“It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes”…Joseph Stalin

Ballots are still being counted across the country. Fraud and poor procedures have occurred in Florida and elsewhere. Does anyone have a warm and fuzzy feeling about the elections? I do not.

Massive numbers of mail in or absentee ballots have been or could have been sent. As of Monday, November 19, 2012, over 1.5 million ballots in California had not been processed. 580,071 mail in, 923,768 provisional and 56,293 other.

Due to a court ruling delay, Ohio just began counting provisional ballots, apparently a large number of ballots created by the confusion of mailing so many absentee ballots.

From the Royalton Post November 20, 2012.

“Ohio House District 7 race awaiting provisional ballots count”

“As famed New York Yankee Yogi Berra once said, “It’ ain’t over until it’s over.” And the Ohio House District 7 race between Mike Dovilla (R-Berea) and Matt Patten (D-Strongsville) is far from over.

The Nov. 6 election results had Dovilla winning the election with 50.3 percent (27,091 votes) to Patten’s 49.7 percent (26,786 votes), a difference of only 305 votes.

There are 1,930 provisional ballots to be counted, however. The breakdown of these as yet to be counted votes looks like this: Berea – 356; North Royalton – 488; Olmsted Falls – 146; Olmsted Township – 242 and Strongsville – 698.

Provisional ballots were to have begun to be counted on Nov. 16 or 10 days after Election Day. Final results were to have been released on Nov. 27 at the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections certification meeting.

The Board of Elections, as of this writing, was still in the process of determining which provisional ballots are valid.

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted issued a directive to local election officials on Nov. 2 that gave them new instructions to reject certain provisional ballots from voters who did not properly fill out the portion of the ballot application that asks for a form of identification.

U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley issued a scathing 17-page ruling stating the directive issued on Nov. 2 was “a flagrant violation of a state elections law” that could disenfranchise voters.

Provisional ballots are given to voters whose eligibility is in question at the polls. Voters have up to 10 days after the election to prove their eligibility in order to ensure that their vote is counted.

Throughout his ruling, Marbley criticized the provisional ballot application Husted designed for the presidential election. Marbley questioned whether the poor drafting was “by design or accident.”

Marbley said the form illegally shifted the responsibility for recording identification information on the provisional ballot application from the poll worker to the voter. He also said the form makes it difficult for election officials to determine if erroneous applications are the fault of the poll worker or the voter.

Husted spokesman Matt McClellan said the Secretary of State would appeal the ruling “because it allows potentially fraudulent votes to be counted. By eliminating the ID requirement on provisional ballots, the ruling is contrary to Ohio law and undermines the integrity of the election.”

Pending any further legal actions, the Board of Elections was to meet on Nov. 20 (past The Post Newspapers deadline) to determine the validity and invalidity of all provisional ballots and review any provisional ballots recommended by the Board of Elections staff for review.

Following the Nov. 20 meeting Board meeting, all provisional voter envelopes were to be opened and the ballots reviewed to ensure the voter cast a ballot in the correct precinct.

In addition to the provisional ballots, there are 175 vote by mail ballots in District 7 that have not been counted. This takes the total of uncounted ballots over to the 2,105 mark when added to the provisionals.

During the 10 days following Election Day, the Board of Elections could receive vote by mail ballots that could be accepted and counted if the return envelopes were postmarked by Nov. 5.

“You would need about 58 percent of everything remaining to flip this in the other direction,” Dovilla said. “He’ll (Patten) pick up a few hundred and I’ll pick up a few hundred I would guess. I think the margin will remain the same. We’re cautiously optimistic that the verdict will hold.”

There is a chance that determination of final numbers could be delayed into December. Even after all the provisional votes are counted, there could very well be an automatic recount of the votes if the difference between the votes cast for the two candidates is equal to or less than one quarter of one percent of the total votes in the race. Either candidate can request a recount if the difference is equal to or less than one half of one percent.

“This is wide open. I’m sure that both of us agree it would be nice to have this done with,” Patten said. “You have to put your life on hold because you just don’t know. I think he and I are both learning more than we ever wanted to about provisionals.””

http://www.thepostnewspapers.com/north_royalton/local_news/article_471b10f8-c38b-5c50-8217-3114132a0744.html

From NewsMax November 1, 2012.

“Ohio Voting Count ‘Nightmare’ Looms”

“With the presidential election expected to hinge on Ohio, the state’s former secretary of state, GOP stalwart Kenneth Blackwell, is warning that a little-known change in the Buckeye State’s absentee-ballot process could lead to a “nightmare scenario.”

And that scenario could force the entire country to wait 10 days after the election to find out who will be the next president of the United States. It’s a complicated situation, to say the least, but one that could have a far-reaching impact on the Nov. 6 election process.

For the first time in the key swing state’s history, Blackwell says, virtually all Ohio voters this year were mailed an application for an absentee ballot. In previous elections, most Ohio voters had to request an application for an absentee ballot to receive one.

The concern is that thousands of Ohio voters may complete the absentee-ballot application and receive an absentee ballot, but not bother to complete and mail in the ballot.

Anyone who is sent an absentee ballot — including those who do not complete it and mail it in — and later shows up at the polls on Election Day to cast their ballot in person will be instructed to instead complete a provisional ballot.

And under Ohio election law, provisional ballots cannot be opened until 10 days after an election.

“I would just say that this is a potential nightmare-in-waiting,” says Blackwell.

Blackwell believes that could result in an unprecedented number of provisional ballots being filed – some 250,000 or more. Such a large number of ballots being held, presumably under armed guard, for 10 days until they can be opened, would bring to mind the historic 2000 post-election battle in Florida. That recount was marked by ballot disputes — and inevitably, lawsuits.

“You’re talking about craziness for 10 days,” Blackwell tells Newsmax in an exclusive interview. “They won’t even be opened to be counted for 10 days.”
According to a report by Barry M. Horstman of the Cincinnati Enquirer, absentee-ballot applications were mailed to 6.9 million of Ohio’s 7.8 million registered voters.

As of Oct. 26, Ohio election officials had mailed out 1.3 absentee ballots. Of those absentee ballots, 950,000 had been completed and mailed back in.
That leaves some 350,000 absentee ballots that had been requested and sent to voters, but had not yet been received.

Ohio voters who requested an absentee ballot, but did not complete it and mail it back in, will not be allowed to vote normally.

Explains Blackwell: “So they go to the polls and say, ‘I want my ballot.’ And [poll workers] say, ‘Oh, we see you applied for an absentee ballot.’ The voter says, ‘Oh, I changed my mind.’ And they say, ‘That’s well and good, but we have to guarantee that you don’t vote twice. You have to fill out a provisional ballot.’”

Provisional ballots are used whenever someone shows up at the polls whose eligibility to vote cannot be immediately verified. Their name may not show up on the voter rolls, for example.

Rather than turn them away, state election officials typically have those individuals indicate their voting preference with a provisional ballot. Once their eligibility to vote has been established, the vote can be counted.

The use of provisional ballots is intended to prevent any voter from casting one ballot by mail, and then a second ballot at the polling place.

Ohio’s current secretary of state, Republican Jon Husted, pushed for the absentee-ballot applications to go out to all voters, according to Blackwell.
In previous Ohio elections, a few counties would automatically send out absentee-ballot applications to all their residents, while the vast majority of counties would not. Husted sought to make the absentee ballot process uniform across Ohio’s 88 counties.

In a news release, Husted said the new system would “help reduce the chance of long lines at the polls during the presidential election, and voters in smaller counties will have the same conveniences as voters in larger counties.”

No one can say how many absentee ballots will remain outstanding as of Election Day. Ohio voters have until Nov. 3 to request an absentee ballot. Election officials will accept and count absentee ballots as long as they are postmarked by Nov. 5, the day before the election.

Ordinarily, the number of provisional ballots outstanding in Ohio probably would be inconsequential. In 2008, according to the Enquirer, only about 70,000 were actually cast.

But uncertainly over perhaps a quarter-million votes would be a serious concern in Ohio, given the historically close margins of victory there.

Democrat Jimmy Carter carried Ohio by only about 11,000 votes over incumbent Republican President Gerald Ford in 1976. In 2004, GOP President George W. Bush carried the state by 118,775 votes over Democratic Sen. John Kerry, in a controversial finish that occurred during Blackwell’s tenure as secretary of state.

As of Wednesday, the RealClearPolitics average of polls in Ohio showed President Barack Obama leading GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney by 2.4 percent. That site, and many others, rate the contest as a toss-up.

No Republican has ever won the presidency without carrying Ohio. The Obama campaign has rested its re-election hopes on a firewall strategy that hinges on winning Ohio’s 18 Electoral College votes. Doing so would greatly complicate Romney’s path to garnering the 270 Electoral College votes needed to capture the presidency.

If the voter turnout in Ohio matches the 2008 level of 67 percent, some 5,226,000 votes would be cast. Under that scenario, 250,000 provisional ballots would amount to 4.8 percent of the entire vote — well over the current difference between the two candidates, according to RealClearPolitics poll average.

Other than Horstman’s report in the Cincinnati Enquirer, Ohio’s provisional ballot issue has largely flown under the radar of the national political press.

Blackwell tells Newsmax that given the uncertainty over how voters may respond to the widespread, unsolicited invitation to obtain an absentee ballot, the potential for a 10-day delay “is a major concern in terms of the management of a process that is perceived as being free, fair, and as unsuspenseful as possible.”

Hamilton County Board of Elections director Amy Searcy echoes Blackwell’s concern. She told the Enquirer that a 10-day lag while the entire nation waited for Ohio to declare who won its election “would be called my nightmare scenario.”

Matt McClellan, press secretary for the Ohio Secretary of State’s office, tells Newsmax it will be late Tuesday or early Wednesday morning before a final tally is available of how many absentee provisional ballots have been cast.
He confirmed that 2012 marks the first election year in which virtually all registered voters in Ohio were sent absentee ballot applications.

He said the department has not made any projections on how that change might impact absentee and provisional ballot voting trends. However, he emphasized that the vote-counting process in Ohio will be reliable, secure, and in accord with the state’s election laws.

“I disagree with the Enquirer story,” said McClellan. “There is not a nightmare scenario for Ohio.

“If the margin is too close, and we’re just not able to tell definitely at that point, that doesn’t mean anything bad has happened in Ohio. It means the process is proceeding as is required under law. So, will we have outstanding absentees and provisional ballots? Yes. We don’t know how many yet; we won’t know until Election Day.”

McClellan emphasized that every legal ballot will be counted.

Blackwell agrees there is no way to know yet how many provisional ballots Ohio will ultimately have to count, or if the nation might have a 10-day cliffhanger before the winner of the presidential election is known.

But he adds, “It is not an unreasonable scenario to plan against, given that this is the first time in the history of the state that every registered voter got mailed – unrequested – an absentee ballot [application].””

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ohio-provisional-ballots-delay/2012/11/01/id/462413

I am still concerned about our overseas military personnel being disenfranchised. I will continue to evaluate vote counts, especially those from military absentee ballots.

2012 election stolen?, Ohio Pennsylvania Florida irregularities, Voting machine problems, One of five Ohio voters probably ineligible, Florida errors should dictate recount

2012 election stolen?, Ohio Pennsylvania Florida irregularities, Voting machine problems, One of five Ohio voters probably ineligible, Florida errors should dictate recount

“the organization has come under intense scrutiny because of its voter registration practices. In several states voter registration forms have been found to include nonexistent or dead people. Some registrants have told elections officials they completed multiple cards at the urging of ACORN canvassers who claimed they would be fired if they did not meet a daily quota for signing up new voters.”…Catholic News Service. Oct. 16, 2008

“Late last night Congressman West maintained a district wide lead of nearly 2000 votes until the St. Lucie County Supervisor of Elections “recounted” thousands of early ballots. Following that “recount” Congressman West trailed by 2,400 votes. In addition, there were numerous other disturbing irregularities reported at polls across St. Lucie County including the doors to polling places being locked when the polls closed in direct violation of Florida law, thereby preventing the public from witnessing the procedures used to tabulate results. The St. Lucie County Supervisor of Elections office clearly ignored proper rules and procedures, and the scene at the Supervisor’s office last night could only be described as complete chaos. Given the hostility and demonstrated incompetence of the St. Lucie County Supervisor of Elections, we believe it is critical that a full hand recount of the ballots take place in St. Lucie County. We will continue to fight to ensure every vote is counted properly and fairly, and accordingly we will pursue all legal means necessary.”…Allen West campaign

“It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes”…Joseph Stalin

No official recount has taken place in the race between Allen West and Patrick Murphy. West is currently down by about 1900 votes, but every time the votes have been counted or processed the numbers change. Clearly there is a problem in his district and apparently in Florida. With all of the documented problems in Florida including known voter fraud and the closeness of the races, it is imperative that the votes throughout Florida be recounted.

Obama currently leads Romney by 73, 189 in FL. An automatic recount is triggered by a difference of less than .5 percent. That is 42,296 votes. With an honest, accurate tally, that threshold could have already been reached.

From American Thinker November 13, 2012.

“Was the 2012 Election Stolen?”

“As the 2012 election approached, conservative enthusiasm grew. Mitt Romney was drawing huge crowds while Barack Obama spoke in half-filled stadiums. All the passion lay on the right while the left was discouraged with a promised messiah who proved merely a politician. And the prediction was that, in contrast to 2008, Republican turnout would dwarf the tuned-out and carry the day. Hence the shock November 6 eve. How could Romney lose, especially by such a wide electoral margin?

Maybe he didn’t

At least not legitimately.

When I predicted Obama’s re-election, I stated that, despite our country’s inexorable leftist slide, Romney would still win on Election Day were it not for vote fraud. I explained that the Democrats could steal more than enough votes in crucial swing states to turn the election. And I still believe what I did then: electoral criminality put Obama over the top.

At the time, we heard stories about electronic-machine “glitches” switching Romney votes to Obama ones. And Patrick Moran, son of Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA), was caught on tape facilitating vote fraud while Bridgeport, CT mayor Bill Finch essentially promised to commit same for a political partner in crime.

Since then, the indications of electoral criminality have been overwhelming. First there are the anecdotes, such as the court-appointed Republican poll watchers illegally expelled from 13 Philadelphia polling places in wards that, in most cases, went 99 percent for Obama; the poll observers who noted what they considered vote fraud but were powerless to stop; and the Democrats who actually bragged about voting more than once.

Then there are the statistics, such as this staggering fact: in 59 Philadelphia districts, Romney failed to get even one vote. Final Obama-Romney tally: 19,605 to 0.

Huh? Not even one person voted GOP accidentally? I mean, there even was a Washington, D.C. councilman who inadvertently voted to approve faux marriage, saying that he didn’t know what he was voting for (that would be Marion Barry).

Next, consider this report from The Columbus Dispatch:

More than one out of every five registered Ohio voters is probably ineligible to vote.

In two counties, the number of registered voters actually exceeds the voting-age population: Northwestern Ohio’s Wood County shows 109 registered voters for every 100 eligible, while in Lawrence County along the Ohio River it’s a mere 104 registered per 100 eligible.

Another 31 counties show registrations at more than 90 percent of those eligible, a rate regarded as unrealistic by most voting experts. The national average is a little more than 70 percent.

[…]Of the Buckeye State’s 7.8 million registered voters, nearly 1.6 million are regarded as “inactive.”

Understand the significance. Years ago I was contacted by a Washington, D.C. community leader (who’ll remain anonymous) who told me that he had “done some computer work for several candidates over the years in DC” and had conducted his own study of urban vote fraud. He said that inner cities’ great transiency ensures that any given large metropolis will have a great number of voters who no longer live in their precinct of registration. These areas also have Democrat operatives known by the get-out-the-vote term “block captains” or “apartment captains,” people who know the lay of the land and thus what registered voters have left town. So all they need do then is vote for these people or have others do so. This is very easy, too, with few voter-ID laws. And this is why Democrats oppose these laws so vehemently.

Now consider that Obama “won” Ohio by 100,000 votes. This means that to flip the state, Democrat surrogates had to illegally “activate” only 6.25 percent of its 1.6 million inactive voters.

Note also that Ohio secretary of state Jon Husted did ask Eric Holder’s DOJ for help negotiating conflicting federal laws pertaining to the purging ineligible voters from the rolls. The DOJ’s ultimate response? “No comment.”

Yet a voter doesn’t even have to be inactive, just disengaged. For example, when the aforementioned Patrick Moran offered advice on surrogate voting, he told an undercover reporter to masquerade as a pollster and call a targeted individual to make sure he wasn’t planning to vote. And this is nothing new. In fact, liberal leg-thriller Chris Matthews himself admitted that it has been going on for years.

Then there is the case of the missing military ballots. As Rachel Alexander at Town Hall reported:

The conservative-leaning military vote has decreased drastically since 2010 due to the so-called Military Voter Protection Act that was enacted into law the year before. It has made it so difficult for overseas military personnel to obtain absentee ballots that in Virginia and Ohio there has been a 70% decrease in requests for ballots since 2008. In Virginia, almost 30,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots than in 2008. In Ohio, more than 20,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots. This is significant considering Obama won in both states by a little over 100,000 votes.

Frankly, it is inconceivable that military interest in voting could’ve dropped so drastically given conservatives’ passion this election season. The damning conclusion? The Obama machine wants our soldiers to shed blood while it sheds their votes.

Striking as all this is, however, it’s likely just a partial picture. As with all crime, it’s a given that the discovered vote fraudsters represent only a tiny percentage of the total. And what about vote-fraud methods we haven’t even thought of yet? Remember, the Democrats have been honing this act for many, many years.

And vote fraud is Democrat domain. Liberals are the situational-values set, people who for years insisted that right and wrong is relative and that if it feels good, do it. And what feels good to them at election time is stealing votes to win – and they do it. They relish it, in fact. Like the liberal who addressed Bill Clinton’s it-depends-on-what-is-is infidelity and adamantly told me, “He did the right thing,” leftists love the con. To pull a fast one like private eye Jim Rockford, fool everyone, and get away with it is like winning the Nobel Prize in Prevarication in their world. Thus, it’s assured that there’s no small number of liberals who are currently brimming with pride at having negated the votes of countless knuckle-dragging conservatives.

Having said this, we can’t be sure about the exact magnitude of the vote fraud. But my judgment is this:

The election was likely stolen.

And whatever Barack Obama is presently, I don’t believe he will be a legitimate president come January 20.

This is why Congressman Allen West was right not to concede his Florida race. And, frankly, if Romney believes that the election may have been stolen nationally, he should withdraw his concession.

Radical?

Unprecedented?

Yes, but so is vote fraud on the scale perpetrated by Obama’s minions. And people needn’t fear creating a national crisis – we are already in a national crisis. The only question is whether good Americans will stand and be counted or allow 2012 to mark our official descent into banana-republic status.”

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/was_the_2012_election_stolen.html#ixzz2C7JO66sa

Joe The Plumber Wurzelbacher on Eric Holder Fast and Furious, Wurzelbacher opposes Marcy Kaptur US House District 9 Ohio, Kaptur protects Holder and Obama

Joe The Plumber Wurzelbacher on Eric Holder Fast and Furious, Wurzelbacher opposes Marcy Kaptur US House District 9 Ohio, Kaptur protects Holder and Obama

“I’m getting ready to buy a company that makes 250 to 280 thousand dollars a year. Your new tax plan’s going to tax me more, isn’t it?”…Joe The Plumber Wurzelbacher

“If he ends up being our GOP candidate, then I will get behind him. I do believe and want somebody in office other than Barack Obama. President Obama’s ideology is un-American, I say that every day, and I won’t shut up about it.”…Joe The Plumber Wurzelbacher

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”…Joseph Goebbels

From Joe The Plumber Wurzelbacher.

Barack Obama is doing everything in his power to protect Attorney General Eric Holder right now. And so is my opponent for the U.S. House race in District 9 in Ohio – Marcy Kaptur.Democrat Kaptur has refused to tell Eric Holder to resign in spite of Holder’s obvious knowledge of Operation Fast and Furious.
A brave border patrol agent is dead because of that operation and now the Democrat Party has circled the wagons.Protecting a criminal is not much different than committing the crime itself.It’s time for real change in Washington, D.C., and that change involves getting rid of the obstructionists who are protecting Holder and Obama.Send a contribution to the Joe for Congress 2012 campaign today. It’s time to replace Marcy Kaptur with a common sense conservative. Image of Joe "The Plumber" for Congress 2012
My opponent is towing the Democrat Party line on this one. She accuses the Republicans of engaging in a partisan witch hunt, and says they have to save Eric Holder so he can protect the voting rights of minorities.I think we’ve heard that whole vast right-wing conspiracy accusation before somewhere.
Image of Joe the Plumber's new campaign video I don’t care which party is in power; corruption is corruption, and our federal officials need to be held accountable when they engage in illegal activities.Click here to watch my campaign video about Operation Fast and Furious, and how Marcy Kaptur is helping with the cover-up.
Unfortunately, I am having trouble getting the word out about my campaign because the leftist mainstream media has sided with Marcy Kaptur and the Democrats. I need the help of grassroots patriots such as yourself in order to unseat Kaptur – a lifelong elitist – in November.I realize that times are tough. We’re all hurting because Barack Obama is making good on that promise he made on my front lawn in 2008 – to give your money to people who do NOT deserve it.
He promised to spread the wealth around through his policies, and he’s sure been doing that – some $6 trillion of it.
But we have to draw a line in the sand this year.Every donation to my campaign is an investment in the future of this country. We can either continue down the path of unsustainable debt or chart a new course for America.Please send your donation to Joe for Congress 2012 today, and together we can start rebuilding this great nation.
Donate to Joe for Congress 2012 Button
Marcy Kaptur represents more of the same-old, same-old in Washington, D.C. The national debt has gone up $14 trillion during her 30 years in office, and she’s been a reliable vote for the left that whole time.I think it’s time for a new direction, and I hope you’ll join me in this fight for the future of America.Please send your donation to Joe for Congress 2012 today!Thanks, I appreciate it.

Sincerely,

Signature Image of Samuel "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher
Joe “The Plumber” Wurzelbacher
355 Shrewsbury Street
Holland, OH 43528

Joe Wurzelbacher, like Sarah Palin and others has been attacked and maligned by the left. The Orwellian weasels of the left have taken Joe the Plumber’s quotes and misportrayed them.

For example:
“In 1939, Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, six million Jews and seven million others unable to defend themselves were exterminated.”…Joe The Plumber Wurzelbacher

Some responses:

“According to Joe the Plumber, gun control is to blame for the Holocaust.”…MSNBC Blogs

“Samuel ‘Joe The Plumber’ Wurzelbacher, the 2008 campaign microcelebrity and Ohio congressional candidate, has an interesting theory about the Holocaust. Yesterday, Mr. Wurzelbacher released a campaign web video in which he blamed the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide on gun control laws.”…THE HUFFINGTON POST

Perhaps Joe should have phrased his statement differently, but his intent is clear to most rational reasonable folks. Gun control was not the cause of the Holocaust but was one of the major factors that allowed it to happen.

Semantics.

 

Obama Ohio speech, January 22, 2010, Jobs speech, Unemployment Up in 43 States in December, Lies, Narcissism, Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, Ohio job losses

While Obama was giving a  jobs speech, Friday afternoon, January 22, 2010 at Lorain County Community College
in Elyria, Ohio, a government report indicated that unemployment was up in 43 States in December. Consistent with Obama’s past and personality, Obama’s speech is driven by Lies and Narcissism. Commentary is provided by Karl Rove, Sean Hannity and Citizen Wells.

Fox News unemployment report, January 22, 2010.

“Unemployment Up in 43 States in December”

“WASHINGTON — Unemployment rates rose in 43 states last month, the government said Friday, painting a bleak picture of the job market and illustrating nationwide data released two weeks ago.
The rise in joblessness was a sharp change from November, when 36 states said their unemployment rates fell. Four states — South Carolina, Delaware, Florida and North Carolina — reported record-high jobless rates in December.
New Jersey’s rate, meanwhile, rose to a 33-year high of 10.1 percent while New York’s reached a 26-year high of 9 percent.
Analysts said the report showed the economy is recovering at too weak a pace to generate consistent job creation.
“A lot of states that had started to add jobs (in November) gave up those gains in December,” said Sophia Koropeckyj, managing director at Moody’s Economy.com.”

“Texas lost the second-most jobs: 23,900. That sent its jobless rate to 8.3 percent in December from 8 percent. The next-largest job losses were in Ohio, Illinois and Michigan.”

Read more:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/22/unemployment-states-december/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528Text+-+Politics%2529
 

Obama Ohio speech text

“Today, because of the actions we took, the worst of this economic storm has passed. But families like yours and communities like Elyria are still reeling from the devastation left in its wake. Folks have seen jobs you thought would last forever disappear. You’ve seen plants close and businesses shut down. I’ve heard about how the city government here is bare bones. And how you can’t get to work or go buy groceries like you used to because of cuts in the county transit system.”

“Let me tell you – so long as I have the privilege of serving as your President, I’ll never stop fighting for you. I’ll take my lumps, too. I’ll never stop fighting to bring jobs back to Elyria. I’ll never stop fighting for an economy where hard work is rewarded, where responsibility is honored, where accountability is upheld, where we’re creating the jobs of tomorrow.”

“I’ll never stop fighting to open up government. That’s why we put in place the toughest ethics laws and toughest transparency rules of any administration in history.”

Read more:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/01/obamas-jobs-speech-in-ohio-the.html?wprss=44