Election Fraud

Below, I received the partial list of voter fraud examples from the November 2012 Presidential Election that most of us have seen over the past few months.  This time I received the list in an e-mail from an elected official with an earnest question of what to do about it.  I’m certainly no expert, but here are the thoughts I sent in reply:

There are many reasons that we lost the election, and voter fraud was part of it — but not all of it.I saw an article go by this week that said there are groups pursuing the examples you sent.So, hopefully, some of that will be flushed out soon

I don’t see it happening, but I’m praying that top-level Republicans (working with other conservative parties like the Constitution Party / Libertarian Party / etc) will see the need for an organized project to watch every vote at every voting precinct in the nation and ensure that voter fraud is wiped out as a potential for swaying the election.It needs to be a proactive effort — not a post-election litigation effort.

We need to:

  • Organize and train poll watchers in every state / township / precinct.
  • Organize and train Republican election judges in every state / township / precinct.
  • Video cameras in each voting location to record the entire day or events of concern by the poll-watchers (even if it’s just smart phone cameras).
  • Know how many ballots are taken to each voting location
  • Know how many ballots are completed / voided / spoiled / returned from every voting location
  • Know the vote counts recorded on each electronic voter machine at each voting location (where used)
  • Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law any effort to commit voter fraud
  • Get rid of all electronic voting machines

The only thing that will wipe out voter fraud is having well-trained eyes on every voting booth the day of the election.

Plus, Brian Bollmann, a lowly chair of a county Tea Party, 3 days before an election, shouldn’t be running around begging for Republican Election Judges for the city of St. Louis.

But that all takes money, and who sees it as important enough to foot the bill?!?  It wasn’t in 2012; will it be in 2014 or 2016? I hope it will.

We will certainly continue to work to prevent voter fraud in our little corner of the world as best we can!

FWIW, I kept saying that Romney’s downfall would be that…

“Romney wouldn’t be willing to go to the mat.Obama would go to the mat.Romney wouldn’t.”

Romney had Obama down on the mat and let him back up.Too bad.

Below is the partial list of voter fraud examples that instigated the e-mail exchange:

From Bill O’Reilly’s message board:Most everyone suspected fraud, but these numbers prove it and our government and media refuse to do anything about it.As each state reported their final election details, the evidence of voter fraud is astounding. Massive voter fraud has been reported in areas of OH and FL, with PA, WI and VA, all are deploying personnel to investigate election results.Here are just a few examples of what has surfaced with much more to come.

  • In 59 voting districts in the Philadelphia region, Obama received 100% of the votes with not even a single vote recorded for Romney. (A mathematical and statistical impossibility).
  • In 21 districts in Wood County Ohio, Obama received 100% of the votes where GOP inspectors were illegally removed from their polling locations – and not one single vote was recorded for Romney.  (Another statistical impossibility).
  • In Wood County Ohio, 106,258 voted in a county with only 98,213 eligible voters.
  • In St. Lucie County, FL, there were 175,574 registered eligible voters but 247,713 votes were cast.
  • The National SEAL Museum , a polling location in St. Lucie County, FL had a 158% voter turnout.
  • Palm Beach County , FL had a 141% voter turnout.
  • In Ohio County, Obama won by 108% of the total number of eligible voters.

NOTE: Obama won in every state that did not require a Photo ID and lost in every state that did require a Photo ID in order to vote.

Sen. Paul Is Tea Party’s Best Hope For Political Power

An article by Dave Banks:

The Democratic Party’s triumph in November brought an abrupt end to the honeymoon between the GOP and the Tea Party, and now, like any fiery romance that unexpectedly turns sour, there’s a lot of finger-pointing as to what went wrong and who’s to blame.

Many GOP political pundits pin much of the responsibility on the Tea Party, specifically for its role in defeating GOP incumbents or establishment candidates who would have probably won in the general election. For Republicans, partisan control of Congress and the White House is the goal, and any win that helps achieve that goal is a good win, regardless of the candidate’s ideological purity.

The Tea Party sees things differently, believing that the GOP has failed because it lacks vision, which has resulted in the nomination of too many establishment candidates who cannot communicate the need for reform. And because most Americans understand the role the GOP has played in creating our fiscal problems, it is difficult for voters to trust a candidate who has long been embraced by the Republican mainstream.

From the beginning, those variances in political strategy were irreconcilable in many ways. But both sides entered the marriage willingly, appreciating the potential political advantages that each side could gain by sticking with the relationship.

The Republican Party, vanquished by the Obama revolution, was drawn to the Tea Party’s ability to motivate the base, viewing the movement as a way to reverse its recent political setbacks and create White House jobs and Hill committee chairmanships for GOP elites. Establishment Republicans thought that Tea Party members of Congress would abandon their drive for “radical” reform once they came to appreciate the benefits of “team playing.”

Tea Party leaders, however, felt that they could change their mainstream partner for the better, either by gaining voluntary converts to their brand of reform or by forcing the establishment to abandon fiscal irresponsibility. Because most Tea Party supporters had voted for the GOP in the past, many naturally believed that most other Republicans, including GOP elites, could be rehabilitated in a 12-step program.

After the 2010 election, things seemed to be on track, and establishment Republicans were willing to tolerate the boat-rocking of the Tea Party’s representatives. For its part, the Tea Party saw its strategy of increasing its numbers in both houses of Congress unfolding.

But with Obama’s re-election, the establishment’s patience evaporated and the “marriage” went south. One could surmise that political necessity will force reconciliation, but this relationship may not recover. The GOP and Tea Party have serious disagreements. That’s the 800-pound gorilla that few people have the courage to acknowledge openly.

The Tea Party is anti-establishment, offering a brand of political radicalism that would unravel centralized government. Its economic philosophy stands opposed to the Keynesianism long embraced by the GOP. Moreover, the movement calls for the devolution of power from any government — federal or state — to the individual. That type of devolution of government power is naturally aligned with social freedom, which explains why many Tea Party supporters, despite their private views, are publicly neutral on social issues.

The Republican Party, however, certainly favors centralized government when those powers coincide with the GOP’s political interests. After all, much of the transfer of powers away from the states to Washington, D.C., and from Congress to the White House was achieved with GOP support. And, of course, many social conservatives promote centralized government when that intervention supports their norms and values.

Though no one is yet seriously discussing a divorce or even a separation, the current relationship between the GOP and the Tea Party is simply unsustainable. Where the Tea Party will end up remains to be seen.

Undoubtedly, the GOP wants the Tea Party to abandon its anti-establishment “radicalism.” To further this objective, the GOP leadership is likely to reward or punish Tea Party members accordingly, as it apparently did when the Republican Steering Committee voted to remove Reps. Justin Amash (R-MI) and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) from the House Budget Committee. And as long as the Tea Party lacks real political structure, many of its members will depend on the GOP apparatus for fundraising and additional support.

The Tea Party is adrift, confused by its flirtation with the establishment and social conservatism. In its early stages, the movement embraced conservative constitutionalism and libertarianism and remained neutral on social issues. If the Tea Party were to choose a separate path or greater autonomy, it would have to go further, embracing freedom in all areas, both social and economic. Additionally, the Tea Party would have to believe that it could win and would win elections, even against Republicans if warranted.

Such clarity of mission would require a leader with a concise vision and the ability to help the Tea Party’s political transition. It would require an articulate leader who could explain to all voters why the Tea Party better represents their values. And it would require a consistent, effective leader — someone who is engaged daily in the fight for the Tea Party’s principles and who enjoys access to a grassroots network, independent of the GOP.

The only person who could reasonably fill that role is Sen. Rand Paul. The future of the Tea Party — and possibly that of the GOP — rests on his shoulders, regardless of whether he is ready for that responsibility.

Despite being Kentucky’s junior senator, Paul is a kingmaker and has vast potential to fundraise, with or without help from the Republican National Committee. Paul is rumored to be contemplating a run for president in 2016. The GOP establishment is counting on him to be a “team player” and run as a Republican, giving the establishment Republicans confidence that they can channel him in ways they find rewarding.

We can be almost certain that if Paul were to run as a third-party candidate, the Democratic nominee would win the White House. And the senator surely understands this. That’s why it’s likely that Paul will continue to work within the GOP, bolstering his credentials as a team player while remaining dedicated to changing the Republican Party from the inside.

That’s a pragmatic long-term political strategy — but one that doesn’t square with the spirit of the Tea Party movement. If the party’s most effective leader becomes too entangled with the establishment, the Tea Party will be at risk of becoming lost and fading into the Republican mainstream, at least in the near term.

However, Paul’s future as a viable presidential candidate is linked to the Tea Party’s potency, autonomy, and staying power. In a presidential race, he would need an enthusiastic base that does not identify with the GOP establishment to propel him to a front-running position. Politically, Paul needs the Tea Party as much as the movement needs him.

The Tea Party understands that America’s shared future is, and always has been, linked to freedom in all ways, in all shapes and forms. Its devotion to that most holy American principle is necessarily predicated on limited government at every level and the devolution of power to the individual. It is an ideology that appeals to all of humanity, regardless of race or gender, and it is the only principle that will allow the United States to prosper through the coming decades and centuries. It is also the standard that will grant the nation the ability to compete against the almost certain challenge from China in this century.

If the GOP is to appeal to the majority of the nation’s citizens and compete effectively in future elections, it will have to embrace the all-freedoms ideology that animates the Tea Party. And to accomplish that feat and overcome the doubts held by many Americans toward the GOP, the Republican Party will need the credibility of a strong, vibrant Tea Party as its vanguard. If Paul can convince the GOP he can deliver that prize, he will be in a strong position to become a leading voice in the emergence of a new Republican Party that appeals to a broader demographic base.

First, though, Paul will have to take leadership of the Tea Party. The movement needs his direction if it is to make the transition into a party of economic and social freedom with greater autonomy from the GOP. By providing that leadership, Paul will help preserve and grow the movement — and in the process, bring himself closer to the White House.

Dave Banks (dbanks@usawed.org) is a policy adviser to the Heartland Institute and the director of D.C. operations for the Alliance of Wise Energy Decisions (AWED), an informal coalition of Tea Party activists focused on energy and environment policy.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/16/sen-paul-is-tea-partys-best-hope-for-political-power/#ixzz2IhUgmehg

TTTT Takeaway Activism and Notes – January 2013

Speaker Notes:

After the excitement of our meeting in November, CCTP Steering Committee members wanted to continue to inform about the Tennessee Center for Self Governance and the training effort underway to become experts on Self Governance… …Citizen SEALS!

Jan Farrar and David Larson led the discussion with our experience in training, examples of successes with TNCSG’s efforts, and many of the trainees in attendance chimed in with notes and examples of how this effort will work.

Before the TTTT, I asked David to describe what he planned to do in the meeting:

Jan and I will do about thirty minutes on the benefits of taking the five levels of citizen engagement through the Tennessee Center for Self-governance. We will discuss civil responsibility and civil authority, by comparing and contrasting them. We will point out that there are hundred  if not thousands of special interest groups lobbying the lawmakers we send to the various legislative houses at all levels. Then we will explain the ordinary everyday citizen is not represented in that manner. We will explain that these classes will empower them to become engaged in the process so that they are no longer lost in the shuffle nor ignored.

And, that’s exactly what they did.


Working Meeting:

Tonight’s meeting was also a working meeting.  The goal here was to review and approve (or reject) the legislative items sponsored or co-sponsored by Cape County’s Missouri House and Senate members – Donna Lichtenegger, Kathy Swan, and Wayne Wallingford.  A few bills proposed by other legislators were added to the list including one co-sponsored by Shelley Keeney of Bollinger County


  • Put together list of the bills
  • Broke up into 4 groups
  • Reviewed them quickly
  • Used our laptops to get additional information on the bills from the House and Senate web sites
  • Came up with a knee-jerk decision to vote for or against the bill

We obviously knew that, with the few minutes we had to work on the effort, we could easily end up with an incorrect decision.  But, the effort was enjoyable, and the decisions likely in line with the CCTP goals of Fiscal Responsibility, Founding Principles, and Constitutionally Limited Government under God.

When reviewing the decisions of the group, most of the responses were quite emphatic.

Click below to see the bills that were reviewed and the decisions of the group.  We hope to complete similar efforts in the future.

CCTP – TTTT – 20130115 – Local Legislator Bills – Reviewed – 01


Takeaway Activism

As a follow-up on our two activities tonight, we need to continue to consider our Civic Authority and our responsibility to guide the votes of our elected officials at all levels.  To that end, we ask that you do three things:


Senate Bill Review

House Bill Review

  • Write a short summary of why you think your legislator should vote for / against the bill
  • Send your review to CapeCountyTeaParty@yahoo.com

New Legislation

  • Propose a piece of Legislation / Law
  • Write a short summary of what you would like to have enacted
  • Give it an awesome title
  • Send your new law to CapeCountyTeaParty@yahoo.com

We will compile these summaries and set up a meeting with our local legislators to pass along your ideas and wishes

TTTT Takeaway Activism and Notes – December 2012


There were no notes! There was no Takeaway Activism.  There was only a celebration of the most powerful and influential man ever to walk on the face of the Earth.  We celebrated with a ChrisTTTTmas ParTTTTy on December 28th at the Trail of Tears Bar And Grill (run by the USA Veterans) in Cape Girardeau, MO.

Here are some pictures from the night:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Employment v Unemployment – December 2012

The Unemployment Rate is out again today with no change at 7.8% (apparently November 2012 was revised up to 7.8%), but there was an actual uptick in the labor force (155,319,000 up to 155,511,000).  The Labor Force Participation Rate remained unchanged at an anemic 63.6% (down from 65.7% at the start of Obama’s 1st term).

We can be heartened at the fact that another major exit from the work force did not occur.

Employment v Unemployment 20121231 - 01


The graph continues to look ugly:

Why Did It Take Till 1/1/2013?

Just a quick and simple post to note exactly why it took until 1/1/2013 to have the Republicans pass the massive tax and spend bill H.R. 8 to avoid the so-called Fiscal Cliff.

On 1/1/2013, the taxes went up anyway.  Now, the Republicans can spin their vote as an effort to reduce taxes from the increased taxes that were in effect on 1/1/2013.

Aren’t they just great!  Good thing they don’t try to treat us like ignorant peasants like the Democrats do.

h/t io9.com