Democrats that can’t win fair and square resort to cheating: Voter fraud alert–Lorain County

A voting fraud scheme in Lorain County has bubbled to the surface.  This message was forwarded from Jennifer Wasilk, of Amherst City Council (emphasis mine):

Voters in Lorain County have reported that this week they have received phone calls from unidentified callers who are posing as Board of Elections workers.  The caller tells the voter that an absentee ballot has already been sent to them and that they haven’t mailed it back. SENIOR CITIZENS APPEAR TO BE THE TARGET OF THESE PHONE CALLS. Ohio voters must request an absentee ballot be sent to them.   None of these voters requested an absentee ballot, because they plan to vote at the polls on Election Day.  Whoever is responsible may be doing this to intentionally confuse people into thinking that they may be receiving an absentee ballot and that they shouldn’t go to the polls.  The Lorain County Board of Elections and the Ohio Secretary of State do not know who is doing this.  They need to know so that this potential voter fraud can be stopped.

If you receive one of these calls:

1. Ask the caller what organization that the caller is with.  Note if the caller claims to be from the Board of Elections.  The Board of Elections does not make these calls.
2. Write down the phone number, if you have caller ID.
3. Call the Lorain County Board of Elections.  Report the information that you get from the caller, and ask if an absentee ballot has been requested in your name.  You may ask for Deputy Director Jim Kramer at 440-326-5902.

But the Democratic cheating is more widespread than this.

How does a PAC have political ads already in the can, ready for release, just 2 days after the PAC was created?  According to Ohio law, no funds can be raised or expended until after a Designation of Treasurer form is filed.  Prior to that filing, there is no PAC.  A PAC is created by filing a Designation of Treasurer form.  According to Ohio campaign finance laws, at the time of the filing of the Designation of Treasurer form, the PAC starts with a zero $ balance.  Having ads already produced indicates that there were funds available and funds expended BEFORE the PAC was formed, which is ILLEGAL.  Among those behind the PAC are a firm in the employ of House Speaker Armond Budish.  There’s also an issue of illegal coordination that needs to be explored.  Here’s a press release from Ohio House Republicans on 10/25/2010 calling for an immediate investigation (emphasis mine):

Two weeks before one of the most influential mid-term elections in a generation, an organization known as “Our Future Ohio” has surfaced in Ohio to benefit struggling Democratic candidates throughout the state.

“Ohio has a new ominous hazard that will assist the Ohio Democrats’ efforts to steal the election from voters who have had enough of their oppression,” said House Republican leader William G. Batchelder (R-Medina).  “Questions need to be answered about this threat. How did “Our Future Ohio” file on a Thursday and have fully produced political ads just two days later?

To date, the group has spent more than $2.3 million to attack leading gubernatorial candidate John Kasich and Ohio House candidates Matt Carle and Ron Young. “Our Future Ohio” has named Alan Melamed as their spokesman. Melamed is the President of Melamed Communications, and the company’s website lists the House Democratic Caucus and Speaker Armond Budish (D-Beachwood) as clients.

“This reeks of impropriety surrounded with so many questions that the public should know,” said Asst. Leader Louis Blessing (R-Cincinnati). “Coordinated expenditures between a corporate-funded PAC and candidates is illegal. The facts remain; Mr. Melamed, a self-proclaimed “chief strategist” for the Speaker, House Democratic Caucus and Melamed Communications, has been paid as a vendor by the House Democratic Caucus and House Democratic campaigns.”

Batchelder further stated that the Ohio House Republican Organizational Committee intends to file an elections complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission against “Our Future Ohio” and the House Democratic Caucus for illegal coordination. He expressed great concern and urgency that Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner institute her own investigation into this scandal.

The Democratic cheating is more widespread than this, though.

In Cincinnati, a few high school students were released during the school day to be transported in order to vote early at the Hamilton County Board of Elections.  The students were supplied with a list of the Democrat Party’s slate of candidates.  No information was supplied to the students about any candidates that were not Democrats.  Afterward, the students were rewarded for their votes with ice cream.  A former school principal (who distributed the slate cards) and a current social studies teacher (who accompanied the students while they were being transported) have been identified among those alleged to have facilitated the voting excursion.  The current Hughes High School principal also potentially faces discipline.  Here are excerpts from an article exposing both the former principal and the current teacher that was published by the Cincinnati Enquirer:

Cincinnati Public Schools will hold a disciplinary conference this week with the principal and social studies teacher who were involved in an Oct. 13 voting outing for Hughes High School students that spurred a lawsuit and public outrage . . .

. . . The lawsuit alleges three vans carrying 31 students were transported to the elections board and given only Democratic sample ballots . . .

The article then names these three adults, but stated there were other adults, volunteers, who took part.  Cincinnati Public Schools policy stipulates that such volunteers accompanying students during the school day shall have already completed satisfactory background checks, but, in this case, the current principal did not ascertain beforehand whether background checks had been conducted for the adult volunteers.

But the Democratic cheating is more widespread than that.

The Ohio Elections Commission is a bipartisan body charged with investigating electioneering complaints brought before them.  The OEC has ruled against the House Democratic Caucus Fund for ads that claim Republican state reps Barbara Sears (from the Toledo area) and Todd Snitchler (from the Canton area) voted to allow child molesters and sex offenders to work as school bus drivers.  Here’s a 10/27/2010 press release from the Ohio House Republicans:

The Ohio Elections Commission today ruled that the smear campaigns launched by the House Democratic Caucus Fund against Reps. Barbara Sears (R-Monclova Twp) and Todd Snitchler (R-Uniontown) are false. The ruling discredited the Democrats’ claims that, in opposing House Bill 19, Sears and Snitchler voted to allow child molesters and sex offenders to work as school bus drivers. The House Democratic Caucus Fund agreed to a stipulation that they violated the false statement statute in lying about the voting records of Rep. Sears and Rep. Snitchler.

“The Democrats have shown that they know no bounds when it comes to their dirty gutter politics,” said Ohio House Republican Organizational Committee director Mike Dittoe. “All they’ve done is waste time by distracting from the facts.”

Sears filed the elections complaint on the grounds that the House Democratic Caucus lied in two television ads. Contrary to these ads, prior to HB 19, criminals who were convicted of molesting and abusing children were already prevented from being school bus drivers. House Bill 19 actually weakened the restrictions on convicted criminals who could pose a threat to Ohio’s schoolchildren.

“I’m pleased that the OEC cleared my and Rep. Snitchler’s names and provided the people of Ohio with accurate information,” said Sears. “As a mother, there is nothing more important than protecting our children and keeping our communities safe. Fear mongering should not have been used to try to frighten parents and sway their votes.”

Previously, the Ohio Elections Commission had ruled against House Democrats for two other claims advertised against Snitchler.  The OEC has also ruled in favor of House Republicans who advertised that Democrat state reps Ray Pryor, Connie Pillich, and Nancy Gardner voted to cut state school funding by $32 million.  The OEC ruled against the Ohio Democratic Party for ads against Pillich’s Republican challenger, Mike Wilson, alleging that he wanted to cut funding for police and safety forces.

In past election cycles, I’ve posted blog articles discussing other ways that Democrats game the system.  Examples can be found at the links here, here, here, here, and here.  So these episodes of cheating are not an anomaly this year.  This is part of the Democrat Party’s modus operandi.

Guest blog: Behind enemy lines

Editor’s note:  This blog article was authored by James Williamson, one of the younger brothers of yours truly.  James grew up in Ohio, but he currently resides in Nevada, so he has a bird’s eye view of perhaps the most talked about U.S. Senate race in the nation.  It’s such a high profile Senate race that President Obama was in Las Vegas on Friday night (10/22/2010), so James went to the Harry Reid rally, even though he doesn’t support Reid, just to see the President (who he doesn’t support, either).   The title of this article is referencing his attendance at that rally.  Like much of the rest of the electorate, James is highly energized about issues of national politics, so much so, that these days he wants to blog (more often than I do) to get a few things off his chest.

BEHIND ENEMY LINES

Reidrally(1)10/22/2010

Reidrally(2)10/22/2010

It’s not every day the President of the United States comes into town.  In fact, it’s such an unusual event that even I succumbed to curiosity.  OK, so my wife was the one that wanted to go . . . but since I had never been able to say that I had seen a sitting President (or any President for that matter) in person, I went along.  I will confess that at first I wanted to shout “vote for Sharron Angle,” but I restrained myself and I’m glad I did . .  not worth taking the chance of being pummeled  . . .

On this occasion, the President was in town to rally support for the endangered Senate majority leader.  (I may add that this was my first time seeing a Senator in person, as well.)  Interestingly enough, I found that if you didn’t get caught up in the shouts and chanting it was really difficult to tell who exactly he was talking about.

President Obama said he wanted to break away from old style politics:  A Washington without partisan bickering, politics where the candidate with the most money and cynicism doesn’t always win.  He called for the parties to work together in a bipartisan way for the good of the people.  Who were you talking to Mr. President?  Look in the mirror when you make such statements.

Another interesting statement was that neither he nor Harry Reid was born with a silver spoon in their mouth.  Then he lauded Reid for being a common man saying that he had humble beginnings and remembers what it is like to have to work for a living and struggle to make ends meet.  Who are you trying to fool?  I never went to a private school while growing up (OK, I technically went to a private college, but BYU tuition was less than Ohio State for me), nor was I privileged enough to have an Ivy League education.  As for Reid, yes, he may remember what it is like to be a common man, but that’s just it:  he has to remember.  I’ll bet he has to think about it a long time to remember, though, because that is now ancient history . . .

Obama also decried campaign smear ads by Republicans and fear mongering ads by groups that aren’t even affiliated with the candidate, groups with funny names that have donors that can’t be identified.  Funny, when my brother (none other than the Buckeye RINO) was here helping me move in, he saw such an ad campaigning against Sharron Angle . . . It was in Spanish, but he noted that the endorsement by Reid was missing (“I’m Harry Reid, and I approved this message”).  I have since heard that ad and many others attacking Sharon Angle that don’t have Harry Reid’s endorsement at the end.  Most of them use very negative pathos suggesting that Angle is not only radical but dangerous based on sound bites from some of the things that she has said that don’t sound very good on the surface but aren’t really all that scary.  (Remember that Angle is a novice.  Reid has had lots of practice speaking in public about sensitive issues, Angle has not.)  I live here in Las Vegas, NV now and I can say that I have heard more of this type of attack ads directed at Angle than I have directed at Reid…  Who are you talking to Mr. President?

When the rhetoric turned to bragging about accomplishments, Obama and Reid both touted their health care reform.  Obama claimed that health care reform is making health care more affordable for consumers.  Oh really?  Then why am I faced with a 100% increase in the health insurance premium portion that I pay, plus why is the company I work for paying an additional 25% for 2011? To be fair, the dollar amounts are roughly equal, because the company I work for pays a much larger portion of the premium than I do, but combining them both represents roughly a 30% increase.   So how is a 30% increase more affordable?  Have we changed the rules of mathematics?  If so, could you explain to me the new rules so I can understand them too?

Obama said that we should move forward and not backwards, that we needed new thinking.  So when Reid bragged that the high speed rail line to California and the I-15 corridor work would bring thousands of jobs to the area in response to the economic downturn, was that a fresh idea?  Is that new thought?  Wait a minute, I seem to remember another time when we had a major economic fallout and the government started a mega-project in southern Nevada . . . Oh, yes!  The great depression and the Hoover Dam . . .  Original thinking there, Mr. Obama and Mr. Reid.  Glad you are here to come up with all these new ideas.  So what happens if it doesn’t improve the unemployment in Nevada?  Will you then say “It would have been worse if we hadn’t”, or will you blame the Republicans for ruining it?

Well if you want some really new ideas Mr. President, some radical ones, I have a few.  How about agreeing to allow use of our national parks by the native Americans as part of restoring trust after years of abuse and land grabs?  How about returning power to the states by eliminating federal agencies and programs that are better handled on a local level, like education and welfare?  If you are so anti-imperial, how about starting right here at home?  In order to compete in the world economy, why not negotiate with the rest of the Americas to adopt the US dollar the way the European Union has? (This has already worked well in Ecuador.)  Why not take it one step further and open the door to allow the states of Mexico to join our Union?  Maybe then we could keep illegal immigration at bay once conditions inside the country improve and they are no longer drawn northward.  (Of course you would have to cut off federal entitlement programs for that to work.)  Maybe then we could get the gang wars under control if we could send in our military instead of theirs.  Maybe then we could keep our retirees, that flee southward trying to keep themselves financially afloat, so that they retire inside the boundaries of the expanded US?  That’s radical thinking.  This is something no politician is even talking about, a new idea.  Re-creating the New Deal under a different name is not a new idea.

After another year, and after we are ready for the next campaign, we’ll check in, Mr. President, and see if you are having any luck with that original thought.  If you haven’t by then, we can help you out . . .

Buckeye RINO 2010 general election endorsements

Endorsements:

(Lots of Republicans, to be sure, but not all–skip to the bottom of the post to see those who aren’t)

In Cuyahoga County government elections this year, the first such under the new charter, vote for all the Republicans you possibly can, including Dolan at the top of the county ticket.  There is a partisan dimension to the corruption in Cuyahoga County.  That’s the reality.  The most powerful and entrenched Democrats caused it.  Don’t harbor delusions that they are out of the picture now.  They will find ways to infiltrate the new structure of government, too.  They always do.  To hamper such efforts at infiltration by corruptocrats, sweep out as much Democrat residue as you can by voting Republican this election.  Farmers rotate crops because planting the exact same crop every year can diminish the productivity of the land.  Likewise, every now and then, Cuyahoga County needs a crop of Republicans at the helm to keep the county fertile and productive.  Allowing the Democrats to remain entrenched over the course of decades must necessarily lead to complacency and corruption.  You can elect Democrats some other election down the road, after they’ve gotten the message drilled into their heads that they can’t keep up the shenanigans.

For Erie County Auditor, please elect Rick Jeffrey, not only for this reason, but because of what I’ve already noted about Erie County Commissioner Tom Ferrell (there’ll be another opportunity to oust Ferrell in 2012, when his current term ends–don’t waste it).  Sometimes, I think Ferrell aspires to be a Dimora and incumbent auditor Tom Paul aspires to be a Russo.  In the Auditor’s office shortly after Paul was sworn in, he wrongfully dismissed a top employee who performed her job well and did not have black marks on her record.  The former employee filed suit over the dismissal, and she won.  Erie County taxpayer money had to be squandered to legally defend an indefensible decision, and, on top of that, pay the penalty ordered by the court.  Was Tom Paul sorry for what he’d done?  No.  He said he’d do it all over again, even with the same outcome.  Who benefited from Tom Paul’s indefensible decision?  Commissioner Tom Ferrell’s wife, that’s who.  She was promoted to the position that Tom Paul wrongfully cleared out.  Let the voters clear out Paul from his position and thumbing his nose at the taxpayers when he intentionally did the wrong thing.

For Lorain County Commissioner, trust me, you don’t want Joe Koziura, though he’s the good old boy who’s the darling of the Democrat machine.  Vote for Tom Williams.  Lorain County voters have rejected proposed county tax hikes on more than one occasion.  They still haven’t rejected the politicians who keep attempting to hike those taxes.  It’s time that they did.  Joe Koziura is ready and willing to increase your taxes.  Tom Williams has pledged that he will oppose all such attempts.  Furthermore, if Koziura is elected, that would put three Lorain Democrats on the Lorain County Commission.  Not only is that an unbalanced commission, one that doesn’t represent the county as a whole, there are no good ideas nor effective elected leaders originating from Lorain.  That should be plainly evident by looking at what a disaster Lorain is, especially in comparison to the rest of the municipalities and townships in the county.  Why would you want a county run into the ground the same way that the city of Lorain has?  From the school board to city government, to county government, to those who represent the area in the Ohio General Assembly, there are no elected government officials from Lorain who have a handle on what it is they ought to be doing for the betterment of the community, with perhaps the lone exception of Jim Smith on the school board.

Having said that, also in need of replacement is the darling of the local SEIU, Sue Morano.  Please vote for Gayle Manning for Ohio Senate. Here’s a link to Manning’s campaign webpage: http://gaylemanning.com

I’ve already urged voters to support Republicans for the Ohio House of Representatives this year.

It does no good to replace Joe Koziura as state representative with a Koziura disciple, Dan Ramos, who was an actual Koziura staffer down in Columbus.  We don’t need to elect a Columbus insider.  Columbus does not have our best interests in mind.  The Plain Dealer had the good sense to endorse Henry “Skip” Lewandowski (you’ll have to scroll down the PD page to see the endorsement), and, for a change, the Lorain Morning Journal also endorsed Lewandowski for state representative in the Ohio House 56th District.  Here’s Lewandowski’s campaign webpage:  http://www.skipforohiohouse

In the Ohio House 80th District, which stretches from Erie County up into Ottawa County, please elect Jeff Krabill for state representative.  Since 2001, Krabill has held a seat on the Sandusky school board.  Incumbent Dennis Murray puts K-12 education on a back burner, but it’s an issue that the Ohio General Assembly spends a lot of time on in each session they convene.  Feel free to consult ohio.gov for more specifics on the bills which Murray is a primary sponsor of.  I failed to find any regarding education.  Many of the bills primarily sponsored by Murray concentrate on legal requirements and legal penalties, so I’m sure the trial lawyers all over Ohio are grateful to Murray, who is a lawyer himself, for finding ways to keep lawyers employed, even while the rest of the private sector is shrinking.  For example, lawyers would need to get involved in home improvements if the owner wants a company to come in and provide more than $1000 worth of improvements.  That’s HB 557.  If you commit some kind of menacing criminal offense toward another person, there are, of course, criminal penalties.  For more fresh meat for lawyers, consider this:  What if we elevated the criminal charge to the next higher degree because a homeless person was intimidated?  That’s HB 509.  If you feel like intimidating someone, find out where they live, first, because it’ll cost you extra if that someone is homeless.  Then there are the frivolous bills, like a commemorative day (HB189), a War of 1812 bicentennial commission (HB 168), and commissioning a new statue to represent Ohio in Washington DC to replace an existing statue which represents Ohio (HB 581).  HB 532 tinkers with exemptions to the taxable portion of estates, but, if it were me, I’d rather get rid of estate taxes altogether.  Why is the state entitled to a chunk of the a$$et$ that a person accumulated over a lifetime?  Did the state, somehow, earn it?  Let’s mandate a “computer take-back program” to recycle your electronic devices and create the  Electronic Waste Advisory Council to get the program off the ground.  That’s HB 447.  Municipalities and minor league baseball teams should be encouraged to partner with each other, shouldn’t they?  So if a minor league team plays home games on municipally owned property, then no property taxes will be assessed.  That’s HB 401.  Murray sponsored two bills that offer sanctions against employers who would terminate employees that are victims of domestic violence (HB 167) or employers who would terminate employees, who, during legal proceedings, are testifying regarding the company (HB 170).  These last two bills have noble purposes, but HB 170, in particular, seems hypocritical coming from Murray, and his role on the Sandusky City Commission in the dismissal of a Sandusky police chief. (Read “Smackdown on Women in Sandusky.”  It has quietly become the #1 most widely read blog post here at Buckeye RINO.)  By the way, what does any of this have to do with the challenges facing Erie and Ottawa counties right now?  I dunno.  Vote for Jeff Krabill.  This is the Krabill campaign webpage:  http://www.jeffkrabill.com/about

If you look at the top of the left hand column of this blog, you will see a search window.  Just type in some keyword, and it will pull up all the Buckeye RINO entries containing that keyword.  As a suggestion, type in “Terry”  followed by “Boose.”  There’s a lot of Terry Boose on this blog.  Read through the articles and consider this:  Unlike Murray, in the neighboring district, Boose has introduced and pursued issues that are keenly relevant to his district and to the challenges his constituents (and voters all over Ohio) are currently faced with.  Re-elect Terry Boose for state representative in the Ohio House 58th District.  Here is the Boose campaign webpage:  http://www.terryboose.com/

I’ve been very wordy with all these endorsements, so let me handle the rest with bullet points:

  • Rae Lynn Brady for state representative for the Ohio House 57th District.
  • Rex Damschroder for state representative for the Ohio House 81st District.
  • Kathleen McGervey for state school board.
  • Bob Latta for Ohio’s 5th Congressional District seat.
  • Rich Iott for Ohio’s 9th Congressional District seat.
  • Peter Corrigan for Ohio’s 10th Congressional District seat.
  • Tom Ganley for Ohio’s 13th Congressional District seat.
  • Rob Portman for U.S. Senate.
  • Maureen O’Connor and Judith Lanzinger for Ohio Supreme Court.
  • Kasich/Taylor to replace Strickland at the top of Ohio’s executive branch.
  • David Yost for Ohio Auditor.
  • Josh Mandel for Ohio Treasurer.
  • Charles R. Earl for Ohio Secretary of State.
  • Dual endorsement, take your pick:  Robert Owens or Richard Cordray for Ohio Attorney General.

Yeah, on those last two executive branch offices, you read them right.

Please vote.

Guest blog: Tea Party will not hurt the GOP

Editor’s note:  James Williamson, one of my younger brothers, an Ohio native, but currently residing in Nevada, authored this blog piece and has previously written guest blogs for Buckeye RINO, which you may read here, here, here, and here.  While I’ve often offer election endorsements, it is true that I don’t often make predictions of the outcomes.  I’m more interested in how I think you should vote rather than how I think you will vote. I have offered predictions about trends in economics, foreign affairs, and religion, though. Further, I wouldn’t go out on a limb and say the Tea Party Movement belongs to the Republicans, as independents, Libertarians, moderate Democrats, and those from other minor political parties are welcome to participate in the Party, and have, in fact, participated in significant numbers.  I concede that the public perception may be that a coalition of independents and a splinter group of Republicans (the ones who have “gone rogue”)  are the nucleus around which the Tea Party Movement has coalesced, and that the MSM plays up the dynamics of the interactions between the Tea Party Movement and the GOP, thus portraying the Tea Party Movement and the GOP as joined at the hip.  I think Sharron Angle surprised everyone with $14 million raised during the latest financial reporting cycle, which underscores the assertions that James has printed here.–DJW

TEA PARTY WILL NOT HURT THE GOP

Recently there have been some statements by prominent members of the Democratic Party that tea party candidates will weaken the GOP by placing radicals on the ballot that cannot get elected in a general election.  Don’t be fooled this nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of the Democrats.  There are at least three reasons why the Tea Party candidates will not hurt, but actually may help the GOP’s chances of taking back Congress in November.

1.       The schism within the party isn’t really a schism. Ironically it was the Republicans two years ago who were pointing at the Hillary Clinton – Barack Obama runoff that touched of serious debate (and name calling) within the Democratic Party and tried to say that the Democratic Party was on the verge of falling apart.  No such luck for the Republicans then and no such luck for the Democrats now.  Again, ironically, it was Bill Clinton who tried to calm critics in his own party by saying that there was nothing wrong with having rigorous debate within the party, that it was all part of the political process, and that there was no reason to run around yelling “The sky is falling.”   The same Bill Clinton that is now calling the Tea Party candidates radicals and extremists. Politically motivated or just an astute observer?  I’ll let you decide that.  Despite all the rhetoric, the Tea Party movement belongs in the GOP. It wouldn’t survive in the Democratic Party because it runs against everything the Democrats believe in.  The fundamentals of the movement do strike a chord with Republicans, though, as it would be impossible to win a primary if it didn’t.  The mere fact that the Tea Party candidates are winning GOP primaries is evidence that no third party is forthcoming. After all, it was when Teddy Roosevelt couldn’t win his party’s nomination that he formed the Bull Moose Party.  The Tea Partiers may be upstarts within the Republican Party but they definitely belong to it and the RNC better get used to the idea.

2.       Anti-establishmentarianism is stronger than the establishment wants to believe. It is so strong (and not without reason) that I predict that record numbers of newcomers to Congress will be elected this year.  (I haven’t done the math, but at this point that may not be much of a prediction since there are so many newcomer candidates and vacating incumbents.)  Why else could Sharron Angle be virtually tied with Harry Reid in the polls?  If Angle has no political experience, no money (compared to Reid), and no brains (according to her critics) then why is she running neck and neck with the highest ranking official in the Senate?  The answer is simple:  Voters don’t care about experience and they don’t care how much money you have.  I will make one more prediction on this one (even though the Buckeye RINO doesn’t like to make predictions, I have no qualms about doing so.  I don’t get embarrassed when I’m wrong.):  Money won’t matter this election.  In fact it may actually hurt you come November because you will be viewed as the establishment AKA the enemy.  These are perfect conditions for the Tea Party Movement and without the anti-establishment mood the movement would never have gotten off the ground.

3.        The GOP needed a whipping. As many others have noted, both parties have been swinging wildly left on the political spectrum.  Republicans barely have more fiscal restraint than Democrats.  Even on moral issues there has been a leftward drift.  Some may think that this is a reflection of the change in thought of the public or even simply progress in political thought, but support for the Tea Party Movement refutes those notions.  The public has not shifted to the left. The political elites have. With things out of balance and Washington being ever deafer to constituents, a pull back to the right is necessary to keep things in balance.  I would point out that even in Europe so-called right-wing “extremists” have made a lot of headway in the last decade.

I might even go so far as to say that the Tea Party Movement may actually become what saves our political process and averts outright revolution.  You can only ignore your constituents for so long before they get angry and only so long after that before they go for their guns….  Of course I could be wrong on that count too.  The Tea Party Movement may not be enough to get the blue bloods in Washington to listen and we may need a second American Revolution…

Why Obama should appeal a court decision against “Don’t ask, don’t tell”

Obama favors repealing “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”  So does Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.  They are of the opinion that coming out of the closet should not be cause for discharge from the military, nor should it be a bar to enlisting, so long as homosexuals in the military are following all the orders and rules given to them that everyone else must follow.

So it should be a welcome gift that a federal judge in California ruled that the Pentagon must strike down the the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, right?

But the Obama Administration is mulling an appeal over the ruling, which might baffle  many in the LGBT community, and it may baffle many others who are center-left on social issues, particularly the issues that confront the LGBT community.

But Obama absolutely ought to appeal, even though doing so would be seemingly contradictory in light of his wish to abolish “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”

The reason is this simple:  Separation of powers between the branches of government.  This federal judge, while feeling that “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” isn’t constitutional, is making a ruling that is not constitutional.

The President of the United States is Commander-in-Chief of the nation’s military.  The Congress has war powers.  The judicial branch of the federal government is absolutely nowhere in the chain of command.  In fact, the military has its own separate courts.

If this federal judge is permitted to run afoul of the Constitution and issue orders to the military, what kind of anarchy might ensue?  Potentially, every federal judge in the nation could be issuing orders to the military.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” preserving our Union and our Constitution requires an appeal based on the constitutional separation of powers.

We cannot have a military that has every federal judge as its boss.  There must be a unitary chain of command.  All military authority flows through just one channel.

Congress has the power to repeal “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”  Secretary Gates and the personnel at the Pentagon are gathering information together for a report to Congress and are preparing to give testimony in Congressional hearings on the policy.  Secretary Gates confirmed that the change in policy must be pursued through the channel of authority delineated in the Constitution.

Let’s not throw the Constitution into the trash bin.  Allowing all federal judges to give orders to the military would do just that.  To prevent our Constitution from being shredded, the decision cannot be allowed to stand, thus the Obama Administration should absolutely file an appeal.

Marcy Kaptur lives in a glass house & throws rocks at Rich Iott

It makes a lot more sense to call U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur an Osama Bin Laden sympathizer than to call GOP nominee Rich Iott a Nazi sympathizer.

Did she really say, in her press release characterizing Iott’s war re-enactments as equivalent to an endorsement of WW II Nazis, “To perpetuate such a twisted and dangerous view of history is outrageous and indefensible?”

Well, let’s step back in time to March 1st, 2003.  The Toledo Blade attributed quotes to Marcy Kaptur from an interview that smacks of revisionism to me.  And, by the way, her take on Osama Bin Laden omits any sympathy toward Jews.  Who is a more clear and present danger to Jews, Israel, and even America, today?  Adolph Hitler or Osama Bin Laden?

“One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown”

And she said this, too:

“I think that one thing that people of faith understand about the world of Islam is that the kind of insurgency we see occurring in many of these countries is an act of hope that life will be better using Islam as the only reed that they have to lean on.

“I think that people of faith understand that for many of the terrorists, their actions are acts of sacred piety to the point of losing their lives. And I think that people of faith understand that there is a heavy religious overtone to the opposition.”

Do people of the Jewish faith understand and put into perspective the actions of the terrorists from such a sympathetic view?  There are many within the Jewish community who exhibit religious tolerance and do not harbor personal enmity against their Muslim neighbors in America, but I don’t think there are many who would view the terrorists in the same light as Marcy Kaptur does.

From the myriad emails I get from those of the Christian faith, I’d say no, they don’t understand.  Not in the way that Marcy Kaptur understands.  Many don’t even understand my pleas  for religious tolerance on this blog.

To be sure, I have, more than once, called for more religious tolerance, and my plea for religious tolerance extended to Muslims in America.  Check it out for yourself by clicking this link and this link.

But we’re talking about terrorists, not about Muslims in America who obey all our laws.

And if the actions and propaganda of the Islamic terrorists in other parts of the world are couched in terms of “a heavy religious overtone,” what does the heavy religious overtone consist of, and to what end is it purveyed?

Annihilation of Israel?  Annihilation of the largest population of Jews outside of Israel, namely New York City?  Annihilation of America, which terrorists refer to as “the great Satan?”  Aren’t these perversions of Islamic teachings aimed toward such ends?

But Marcy Kaptur made nary a mention of the terrorists’ rampage against the Jewish religion (nor of anti-Semitism, in general) in her interview, nor in her “clarification” a few days later (World Net Daily article from March 8,2003).  She only referenced the religious convictions of the Americans engaged in the Revolutionary War against the British crown and her own Catholicism.  Is this omission tantamount to whitewashing what the terrorists truly stand for and strive for?  You decide.  But read what follows before you do.

In her interview, she was pleading for peace, to take no military action against such an “insurgency we see occurring in many of these countries.”  In the aftermath of the Holocaust, didn’t we solemnly resolve “Never again?”  Don’t these terrorists wish to emulate the Holocaust?

Her remembrance of the history surrounding the American Revolution and the motives of the American colonies’ rebellion is on shaky ground.  This is no benign revisionism.  It is “a twisted and dangerous view of history” when applied to Osama Bin Laden and his ilk.

Massachusetts was a Puritan colony.  Maryland was a Roman Catholic colony, settled by those who felt Great Britain under the Church of England was too religiously oppressive.  Yet there were colonies that were settled in large numbers by the adherents of the Church of England.

The Puritans sought to escape persecution in England by relocating, first to the Low Countries off England’s shore, and, shortly thereafter, in Massachusetts.  But that didn’t mean that the Puritans of Massachusetts championed religious liberty.  Why did Roger Williams leave Massachusetts and take on an important role in the colony of Rhode Island?  Roger Williams wanted more religious liberty than could be found in Massachusetts.

With all these competing religions in the 13 colonies, religious liberty in America had to be hammered out during the framing of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.  Religious liberty was not achieved by rebelling against Britain in the American Revolution, nor did it instigate the rebellion.  Though Americans had a lengthy list of grievances against Great Britain, heavy taxation without any representation in Parliament was the actual spark that led to the Revolution.

Armed conflict in the name of religion happened in Northern Ireland, in the Christian reconquest of Moorish Spain, during the Crusades in the Holy Land, and in many other places throughout time, but not here on American soil, not even during the American Revolution.

Yet Marcy Kaptur portrayed the terrorists as akin to Revolutionary Americans.  Such revisionist statements, if believed, would evoke sympathy toward the terrorists point of view.  Even in her clarification, though she spoke out against terrorists, she did not abandon this faulty view of history and defended her comparison between the terrorists and the Americans who fought the War of Independence.  Make no mistake, the Islamic Jihads occurring in other regions of the world are not wars for achieving independence.  Quite the opposite.  And with this comparison as the rationale for “peace” with the terrorists, her “twisted and dangerous view of history is outrageous and indefensible.”  If we exit the fight against terror in the name of peace, would peace really flourish under the rule of the terrorists?  There is no peace, whether we fight or not, but the fight against terror serves to protect us.  I think protecting ourselves is a worthwhile endeavor.  I thank God for the courageous women and men in our nation’s military who provide the most important public services rendered by any persons on the government payroll.

Marcy Kaptur further revises history, during her interview, by asserting that the attacks against us were brought about by ourselves.  We bear some blame in the attacks.

” . . . we have to learn to coexist in a world with religious states that we may not agree with and find ways to cooperate.”

Those “religious states” have even more need “to learn to coexist” than we do.  We are at the vanguard of finding ways to cooperate and coexist in the world.  We do better at it amongst ourselves within our own borders than any other country in the world does, and we endeavor, throughout the world, to follow that same ethic.

And further:

” . . . I think this is such an important moment in history is because the United States cannot become the target of the anguish of the dispossessed in the most undemocratic region of the world.”

Two things about that statement bother me.

The first is that we can make ourselves a target of the dispossessed.  Last time I checked, there are more dispossessed in the world who would rather migrate here than who would attack us.  We don’t target ourselves and we don’t make targets of ourselves.  The terrorists who cannot abide democracy choose to target us of their own volition.  We ought not to abandon democracy, not even to avoid being targeted.

The second is that, in “the most undemocratic region of the world,” the dispossessed would do far better to alleviate their anguish by contending against their own tyrants than to contend against us.  They should be seeking to gain their independence from tyranny.

If Rich Iott is a Nazi sympathizer for playing the role in such re-enactments, then whenever anyone stages a revival of Rodgers and Hammerstein’s “The Sound of Music,” we should disavow and repudiate the actors who appear as Nazis in that musical as being sympathetic to the perpetrators of the Holocaust.  Hollywood ought to banish actors who play the roles of Nazis in their films for the very same reason.  Kaptur’s reasoning in denouncing Iott on these grounds is a prime exhibit of the politics of personal destruction and character assassination.  There’s no merit to what she alleges.

Kaptur’s posturing against Iott is mudslinging.  Let’s call it what it is.

Apparently, there are Kaptur henchmen who are defacing Iott yard signs with swastikas . . . or are these Kaptur supporters who have gone rogue?  In this Blade article, a Kaptur spokesperson, Mary Chris Skeldon isn’t so convincing in keeping Kaptur distanced from the vandals.

“For him to blame the actions of others on our campaign is ridiculous and a sign of desperation.”

The Kaptur campaign made a ridiculous charge in the first place that associated Iott with swastikas.  Why wouldn’t the Kaptur campaign’s mudslinging be the impetus for such antics?  And isn’t it the mudslinging, itself, a hallmark of desperation on Kaptur’s part?

Kaptur wants this story to be in the headlines rather than issues of domestic policy.  As an incumbent representative to Congress, shouldn’t she want the headlines to be the causes she championed in Congress?  Shouldn’t it be about the legislation she delivered on and the legislation she’d pursue if re-elected?  Nope.  Iott must be polling within single digits of Kaptur.  She stooped this low against Iott, but not against prior contenders that she bested by double digits.

Iott, for his part, has remained focused on issues, with press release after press release talking about reforming Congressional earmarks and reversing downward economic trends.  He’s the one taking the higher road.