October 31, 2008

I Had No Idea My E-Mail Program Was This Good …..

Filed under: Scams,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 10:55 pm


Special Guest Column from Jesse Hathaway Of Ohio University: ‘Voter fraud: Democrats dish out tricks and no treats’

Filed under: Scams,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 10:16 pm

I am pleased to be asked, and very please provide Ohio University senior Jesse Hathaway the opportunity to give his perspective on the ongoing vote fraud in Ohio and the Buckeye State’s ongoing vote fraud enabler, Jennifer Brunner.

This is being posted in its entirety with Jesse’s permission. Jesse’s original article is here; it follows up on a related article from a few weeks ago found here. Also, click here to go to an archive of Jesse’s columns since September of last year.

Here goes:

Voter fraud: Democrats dish out tricks and no treats
Published: Friday, October 31, 2008

Three weeks ago, I wrote about allegations of voter registration fraud in Ohio, and what Secretary of State Jennifer “No Driver’s License, No Green Card, No Problem” Brunner has been up to in her quest to avoid doing any kind of election enforcement in Ohio whatsoever.

Since I last covered this issue, the Ohio Secretary of State’s office has declared that poll workers “may not challenge a voter on Election Day” if the “information provided by the person” doesn’t match the “records maintained by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (including data originally obtained from the Social Security Administration database).” In other words, if people were to go to Baker Center and try to vote under false pretenses, there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them. The same goes for absentee ballots; if people turn in absentee ballots with faked addresses or names, it’s now forbidden for Ohio boards of election or other interested parties to challenge those ballots. Is this the ultimate expression of universal suffrage: granting all people the right to vote, regardless if they are real or imaginary?

The Ohio Republican Party took its case against Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Democrats point to the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous “no” vote as verification that Brunner is doing her job in accordance with the law, but the Supremes’ given reason for voting “no” is not mentioned. The case of Republican Party of Ohio v. Brunner was in play for almost a month, and none of the state and federal judges thought the Ohio Republican Party was legally unable to make the specific kind of complaint that was being made. That is to say, the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the case, but the technicalities. If they had, however, past history suggests that they would have sided with the Ohio Republican Party: 11 of 17 different federal judges over the course of ORP v. Brunner’s life found that Brunner’s policies were not in accordance with election law. If 11 of 17 federal judges each rule in the same way, on the same case, chances are they’re probably right.

Mad-dog Democrats might argue that all 11 of those federal circuit judges are brainwashed Republican zombies, and are part and parcel of some kind of vast right-wing conspiracy. However, these people also argue that Bush stole the 2000 and 2004 elections, citing debunked magazine articles and hyper-partisan news outlets. The people taking this tact have a tenuous grasp on reality as it is, so it’s better to speak no more of them, as they’re of no import.

As if Brunner’s willful incompetence wasn’t bad enough, Gov. Ted Strickland joined in, accusing Republicans of “[trying] to instill fear in Ohio voters” and calling the Ohio Republican Party’s attempts to force Brunner to enforce the law “despicable.” Feeling left out, U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown piped up, saying that Republicans were “using a systematic and coordinated effort of […] lawsuits and official government positions to scare Ohioans and suppress voters.”

Well, that’s an interesting comment, Sen. Brown. Considering that Secretary of State Brunner got caught red-handed trying to suppress Republican votes in Hamilton County a few weeks ago, and there is this sudden outbreak of Ohio Democrats trying to scare Ohioans out of wanting a fair election; is it really the Republicans who are trying to “scare […] and suppress”?

Today’s Halloween, and appropriately, there are a lot of scary things going on. Unfortunately, Ohio Democrats have a bag full of tricks and no treats for Ohio voters.

Obama Tax-Cut Threshold Watch

Filed under: Economy,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 12:56 pm

The number of people who will get tax cuts from Obama keeps on shrinking — From $250,000 …. to $200,000 …. to $150,000 …. to $120,000 (per Bill Richardson on KOA this morning, as played by Rush just a few minutes ago).

They started hidin’ Biden. Richardson steps right in, and steps right in it. Gotta love it.

The road to tax increases for all continues. Perhaps, and hopefully, there’s a cliff ahead on November 4.

Patrick Poole Guest Post: Obama and Biden Refused to Spread Their Wealth

Filed under: Economy,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 10:00 am

It is an honor to post punditry provided by Patrick Poole, whose primary outpost is at Central Ohioans Against Terrorism.

Patrick makes great points about the charitable giving record (spreading the wealth, as it were) of the Democrats’ “Do as I say, not as I do” ticket, and its sharp contrast with John McCain:

Obama and Biden Refused to Spread Their Wealth
By Patrick Poole

Thinking about Barack Obama’s impromptu lecture to Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher about his plans to “spread the wealth,” I wondered whether Obama was a practitioner of his own “spread the wealth” principles when he had the opportunity to do so, or whether he was the cheap political opportunist and redistributor of the wealth of others that he appeared to be.

Looking at Obama’s charitable giving in since 2000 based on his tax returns, we find that Obama consistently refused to follow his own advice to “spread the wealth” when he had the opportunity to do so. This is especially true in years when he made nearly $250,000 or more. Their contributions didn’t increase until Barack Obama’s extraordinary book deal helped make him a millionaire and Michelle Obama received nearly $200,000 raise in May 2005 when she assumed a new position with her employer as vice president of “community and external affairs” – coincidentally, just months after he husband joined the US Senate.

As the chart below shows (HT: TaxProf Blog, who has PDF links to all returns listed), from 2000-2004, Obama’s charitable giving averaged less than 1 percent:


In fact, during that 2000-2004 period Obama gave substantially less than the average family making more than $150,000, which averages giving of 2.2 percent of total income according to University of George Professor Russell James. And a study published in January by the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy found that nationwide in 2004 more than two-thirds of American households – the vast majority of which made significantly less than the $207,647 Obama made that year – still gave an average of over $2,000, or 3 percent of their income.

Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden, was even stingier about spreading his wealth. When his tax records were released in September, they revealed that over the past decade he had only donated an average of $369 each year. In 2007, his charitable giving was only $995, or 0.3 percent of income in a year when his tax returns reported $319,853 in income.

By comparison, John McCain gave more than one-quarter of his income in 2006 and 2007 (28.6 and 27.3 percent respectively). And according to the New York Observer, since 1998, he has donated royalties on his books totaling more than $1.8 million.

When Barack Obama and Joe Biden could voluntarily give more of their own income and had the means well beyond most Americans to do so, they refused. In the event that Barack Obama is elected President, however, he and his Democrat allies in Congress intend to force others with the full might of the US government to do what he refused to do on his own.

Vote accordingly.

HOPE ON Project, Day 12: Let’s Never Find Out Part 12 — ‘Left of Everyone’

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 8:42 am

HOPEONlogo.jpgNote: This is the sixth of what will be 13 daily posts on why Barack Obama is a dangerous, objectionable, and objectively unfit candidate to be president of the United States (while many of the other candidates are not). Previous Posts — Part 1 (Obama “Part of the Problem” on Fan and Fred); Part 2 (“Energy”); Part 3 (“Punished”); Part 4 (“Number One”); Part 5 (“Earmarks”); Part 6 (’The Chicken Button’ and the Chicken Who Pushed It); Part 7 (”Trust” on Bill Ayers); Part 8 (”Middle Class”); Part 9 (”Not This Time”); Part 10 (”Income Taxes”); Part 11 (“The Anti-Reagan”).

The daily videos involved are from NeverFindOut.org, a project of Let Freedom Ring (donation link is here).

This post is part of the HOPE ON Project (Help Ohio Prevent Electing Obama Now).

Today’s SOB Alliance author is Darth Dilbert at Return of the Conservatives.


Video (direct YouTube link):



MAN: Senator Obama, I’m standing where you stand: all the way to the left. Your 2007 voting record made you the most liberal member of the US Senate.

Left of Hillary Clinton. Left of Ted Kennedy. And even left of your running mate Joe Biden. Barely. He was number 3. You, Senator Obama, are number one. Left of Everyone.

ANNOUNCER: What happens when we elect America’s most liberal Senator to the White House? Please, America, let’s never find out.


Comments from Darth Dilbert:

To any common observer to politics it’s no surprise that the first name listed when doing a Google search for “most liberal senator” is Barack Hussein Obama. Each year National Journal rates the members of the senate and in their results published on 31 January 2008, they ranked the Messiah as the most liberal with a score of 95.5%. This placed him to the left of such socialist democRATs as John Kerry, Bernie Sandars, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the hero of Chappaquidick – Ted Kennedy. I’m sure he’s honored.

In 2006, he was ranked to the left of Hillary Clinton in his record on pro-growth policies. In 2005, he was ranked to the left of such notable fiscal conservatives such as Chuckie “Free Credit Report” Schumer, Joe “Plagiarists ‘R Us” Biden, Robert “KKK” Byrd , John Francois Kerry, Ted “The Swimmer” Kennedy, and Patrick “Leaky” Leahy.

He has a 0% rating from the Americans for Tax Reform and a 13% rating from Citizens Against Government Waste. His hatred for the Second Amendment was clear with his support of the DC gun ban, and further it is no surprise that the NRA gives him a F rating, and the Gun Owners of America gives him a 0% rating.

If you have any question as to his radical far left extremist positions, he has a 83% rating from the ACLU, and an 83% rating from the government school indoctrinators at the NEA. Can you smell the socialism that BO is cooking? Or is that a lack of deodorant?

This is day 11 of the HOPE-ON Project (Help Ohio Prevent Electing Obama Now). Turn HOPE-ON on, and Obama off!


Additional BizzyBlog Comment:

As noted yesterday, the real Obama is left of Ralph Nader.