is exposed by Janie Johnson in a single tweet

Quick someone call Justice & MSNBC STAT!

Final thought: As nobody would argue Mexico’s elections are fraud free someone in the DNC should go down there and watch how they do it.


Olimometer 2.52

It’s Sunday, a new week which is a good thing because the last two weeks have not been very successful.

Well that’s not entirely true, we’ve had fair traffic but not only have we failed to make goal to secure the mortgage and pay DaMagnificent Seven plus our new villager the first two weeks combined didn’t manage to come up to a single week’s goal

But we’re back again, with a $345 goal for the week to try and start to move the ball forward toward getting the mortgage and the writers paid this month.

Olimometer 2.52

Once we manage that then we’ll worry about catching up on the ground we’re behind.

Of course if we can get 58 1/4 more subscribers @ at $20 a month the bills will be paid every week and the problem will be solved on a more permanent basis.

What do you say?

What if they should find a leader? What shall we do then.

General Burgoyne The Devil’s Disciple 1959

Ulrich’s discovery of guts is cause for organization wide concern

Daredevil Comics Born Again 1986

As we get closer and closer to election day (or should I say the day when the votes are counted since early voting has started in some states) there has been a small tremor that lately has gotten less and less press both in Massachusetts and nationwide. That is the effect of citizen activists taking an interest in the vote.

No I’m not talking about the activists that the Democrat party funds via Government Largess via Unions etc such as Neighbor to Neighbor in Worcester and ACORN who like the machines of old are tasked with providing the vote totals the left needs by shall we say , all necessary means. I’m referring to the grass roots tea party folk whose involvement in electoral politics is cause for organization wide concern for the left.

When the large tea party groups held their rallies in Washington, while there was some surprise there was very little worry on the left or the media. After all annually the March For Life protests was (and still is) the largest protest in Washington and the MSM has successfully ignored its numbers to the point where the hundreds of thousands of people who participate might as well be invisible. The left was sure they could count on the MSM to downplay the numbers and effect of these crowd.

But something different happened when the tea party folks made it home. Something the left did not suspect.

Our friends from the left, so used to their own paid protesters and rent-a-mobs, assumed that once there was a picture for the media to see people would simply fade away until the next media opt.

Then never imagined that without the pay from a large organization that people might actually get involved.

With Scott Brown’s victor in January of 2010 came the first actual shock to the left, the idea that there might be something going on here. 10 months later the results of the house elections gave the left another huge shock. 63 seats worth of shock.

In Massachusetts the left woke up in time for the election. The hand that they had kept behind their back because it wasn’t needed was brought out. The left and the union had people all over the state, making sure the Bay State remained solidly in the “D” Column.

The left breathed a huge sigh of relief in the state figuring this was the high water mark for the right.

Then came the official loss of an electoral seat, then came the retirement of Barney Frank,

and then came people like Bonnie Johnson a tea party activist who started delivering some startling news concerning the law in Massachusetts:

Every January Massachusetts Cities and town send out a city/town census to every residence. It lists the registered voters in the dwelling and how they are registered. I’ve filled it out every year without a thought, not noticing the warnings on the form if it is not done.

I had filled out the form for years not thinking a word about not realizing its significance

If the form is not returned the people on them are marked as an “inactive” voter. By law an “inactive” voter who attempts to vote must fill out and sign a form and provide proof of both residence and identity to be able to vote.

The law had been on the books for a long time but when you never have contested elections nobody really cared about it, she visited tea party groups in the states and delivered the message:

The problem seems to be a lot of people are not aware of the law, and if you want it enforced you need people at the polls volunteering and working to ensure it IS enforced.

The results have been training session that taught people what the rules were and how to be sure they were enforced while poll watching, at the time I asked Bonnie Johnson how this works:

DaTechGuy: Now how would the poll worker know that it’s an inactive voter is there like an “I” next to it someplace?”

Bonnie Johnson: There’ a lower case “i” next to their name.

DTG: Now is the poll worker required to demand this or does an observer have to bring this up from your experience?

BJ: The Poll worker should demand this.

DTG: So if the poll worker doesn’t demand it, if you are an observer you can say “This person was inactive, you are required to do this.”

BJ: Correct.

DTG: And this is by state law?

BJ: Absolutely.

But nobody had been enforcing the law, why bother? the elections in Massachusetts were as contested as elections in Iraq during the Saddam era, but now you have people being forced to enforce the law with the following result

BJ: In Worcester 99,000 voters 46% of them became inactive when they did this.

Remember Worcester is the 2nd biggest city in New England Behind Boston and Scott Brown lost the city by just under 2000 votes out of 38,282 cast. The number of now inactive votes exceeds the total number of votes cast in the 2010 special election. In Boston Scott Brown lost the city by 38 points. Just under 60,000 votes. Imagine if you are a democrat poll and a well funded Scott Brown campaign has poll watchers in every precinct who KNOW THE RULES.

What might happen, stuff like this perhaps?

Fast forward to this year’s state primary election, held on September 6, 2012. Countercharges, of voter fraud and “voter suppression,” were levied by and against Worcester Tea Party observers on that day. Worcester Tea Party members say that they observed people being escorted into the polling precincts, again by Neighbor to Neighbor wearing their purple shirts. In addition, allegations of voters showing resident alien – green cards – as identification were witnessed. The observers tried to document this and were thrown out of the polling location, they would say illegally, for doing so.

City officials, led by Councilor Saral Rivera, stormed into the voting precinct to allege voter intimidation by the neutral observers, to the Democratic primary. Numerous hearings have been held by both the City Council and the Election Commission to determine what happened on that day. As the New York based newspaper up the street’s editorial board has said no credible evidence has been presented showing voter intimidation. So far little evidence has been found that the Election Commission has refused to call for a formal investigation.

And when the author of this piece Rob Eno of Red Mass Group tweeted out things like this

And you saw angry tweets like this one from SEIU people in reply:

oh Harassing it it? Well if those tea party folks were harassing people instead of making sure the law is obeyed I’m sure the Worcester Election commission dominated by democrats would demand an investigation to make sure voters aren’t being intimidated….

The Election Commission is holding off, at least for the time being, on calling for a formal investigation into allegations that some observers violated the rights of voters during the Sept. 6 state primary.

But…but the harassment, the intimidation of minority voters, surely the people victimized by these scurrilous actions complained. Surely groups like Neighbor to Neighbor being community organizers devoted to protecting the rights of voters have submitted this information to the city or the state…

it was pointed out that no formal written complaints or affidavits have been filed by any poll wardens or aggrieved parties with either the Election Commission or the secretary of state’s office.

..or not.

No complaints, no affidavits no sworn statements? If this is true the question is WHY?

I suspect the answer is closely related to a question I asked a few weeks ago concerning the left’s complaints over voter ID laws in Pennsylvania:

Why should producing an ID change the result of any election?

Why should the use of an item needed at any bank, to cash any paycheck or government check, to use a credit card, an item you are asked to produce at a hospital, at a supermarket or even to buy booze cause the results of an election to change? Do Democrats need these ID less that republicans?

The answer is simple. There are no affidavits because those would be declarations made under oath that would have to be defended in open court. Just like showing an ID or filling out an affidavit for a provisional ballot would be a declaration under oath that a voter is who they say they are and live where they say they live.

In a federal election that’s a federal offense.

In 1941 Lyndon Johnson ran in a special election for the US Senate, his primary opponent was the sitting Governor Pappy O’Daniel. Johnson campaigned hard (nobody worked harder at campaigning than Lyndon Johnson) and was not shy about stealing or buying votes either, but Johnson make the fatal mistake allowing some of his “owned” precincts report early giving O’Daniel the ability to know how many votes he needed to steal/buy/fix to win this election.

Robert Caro in his first volume on Lyndon Johnson “The Path to Power” told of Johnson’s reaction on page 739:

Johnson’s reaction was to try to steal it back. Telephoning George Paar, he asked the Duke of Duval to give him more votes. But Parr Refused; he later told friends he replied “Lyndon, I’ve been to the federal penitentiary, and I’m not going back for you.”

The left can bluster, they can scream and they can cry, but as long as there are tea party people watching, as long as the activists are ready and educated on the law, as long as campaigns like Scott Brown has the money to make sure that any person trying to cast an illegal ballot. (or should be call them undocumented ballots) will be challenged and subject to the full penalty of the law then those who have been unchallenged for years will think long and hard before they take that risk.

THAT is why the left is fighting so hard, THAT is why there is worry, that is why we are reduced to polls like Sunday’s Columbus Dispatch suggesting somehow Mitt Romney with 90% of the GOP vote and with 40.8 of the independent votes vs 41.7 to Obama is somehow down by 9.

And it’s also why they are not covering what the Tea Party is doing as Glenn Reyonlds reports:

the mainstream press isn’t very interested in covering this kind of thing anyway. Stories about Obama grassroots organizers in 2008 were fine. Stories about the Tea Party organizing this time around would conflict with the preferred (if somewhat contradictory) narratives that the Tea Party is (1) just a bunch of billionaire-funded astroturf; and (2) a preserve of racist “bitter clingers” who are too busy digging for Obama birth certificates to engage in hard political work.

Either way, these kinds of initiatives will make a difference. The question, again, is whether they’ll make enough of a difference.

That is the big fear, what do you do if there is a pool of activists not controlled by a major party, a group that you can’t office political goodies to in the hope they will simply go away?

You can’t do a damn thing about them, you can holy hope to outwork them with your paid guys.

That’s why I’m still very confident in saying this:

“Ride right through them, they’re demoralized as hell”!

And if you think they are demoralized now, wait till AFTER this election.

Update: Oh BTW here is a bit of news that you might not have heard:

A Commonwealth Court judge said Thursday that he was considering allowing most of the state’s controversial voter identification law to remain intact for the November election and was contemplating only a very narrow injunction.

Judge Robert E. Simpson Jr. said at the end of the second and last day of a hearing on whether to halt voter ID requirements for the Nov. 6 election that he was considering an injunction that would target the portion of the law that deals with provisional ballots.

You can tell what the folks at think of it by the title in the link…

Yup I trust these guys for clean unfiltered news.

It was easy for all of us to disappear. My house was in my Mother-in-Law’s name. My cars were registered to my wife. My social security card and driver licenses were phonies. I never voted I never paid taxes. My birth certificate and my arrest sheet that’s all you’d ever have to know I was alive.

Good Fellas 1990

One of the things you find a lot in politics is “battlefield preparation”, the attempt to create a meme and then have it become conventional wisdom. A great example of this was the “Billion Dollar Man” business with the president that bluffed a lot of people into thinking Barack Obama would be invincible.

But now that the days of panhandling at weddings are upon us and the bad economic news continues for the Obama campaign a new set of Memes are being prepared. One set is evidenced by the unified wailing and gnashing of teeth by the left over Pennsylvania’s voter ID law.

Talking Points Memo:

Hundreds of thousands of potential voters here were left scrambling in the wake of Pennsylvania’s voter ID law — enough to prompt speculation as to whether the law could change the outcome of the election in November.

But one thing is clear: The law is already having a dramatic effect on how the election is being waged.

CBS News:

New data released by Pennsylvania officials suggests that as many as 750,000 voters in the crucial battleground territory could be impacted by a stringent new voter ID law.

The law, passed this May ostensibly to prevent voter fraud, requires all voters in Pennsylvania to show a valid photo ID at the polls.

Huff post:

While supporters argued that it was a simple measure meant to combat voter fraud, figures released this week show that the law may affect more than 750,000 Pennsylvanians who don’t currently possess identification cards issued by the state Department of Transportation.

The breathless declarations of disenfranchisement of a 3/4 of a million voters are based on the number of people who don’t have drivers licenses, however while the left rages against the machine lets look at what is actually needed in PA for ID off the State’s web site:

Acceptable IDs include:

♦  Photo IDs issued by the U.S. Federal Government or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:
Pennsylvania driver’s license or

♦  non-driver’s license photo ID (IDs are valid for voting purposes 12 months past expiration date)

♦  Valid U.S. passport

♦  U.S. military ID – active duty and retired military (a military or veteran’s ID must designate an expiration date or designate that the expiration date is indefinite). Military dependents’ ID must contain an expiration date

♦  Employee photo ID issued by Federal, PA, County or Municipal government
♦  Photo ID cards from an accredited Pennsylvania public or private institution of higher learning
♦  Photo ID cards issued by a Pennsylvania care facility, including long-term care facilities, assisted living residences or personal care homes

SEVEN count them SEVEN different forms of ID acceptable that are not drivers licenses, while you’re digesting that let me note in their eagerness to cry foul they leave out one other item of note:

If you do not bring your ID on Election Day, vote with a provisional ballot. Don’t leave without voting!

So if you don’t have your ID on you or if there is a glitch you can vote with a provisional ballot which can be counted if it can be verified that you are who you say you are and eligible to vote. If that is the case why is there such a fuss?

I suspect the reason is this: When November comes around, explanations are going to be required by those donors who gave and the true believers who worked. It’s going to be a lot easier to sell “voter disenfranchisement” to the liberal base than: “Our candidates and ideas stink.”

Which is why I say

“Ride right through them, they’re demoralized as hell”!

and we haven’t even touched on the biggest issues the left has with these laws, but that’s for my next post…

The DaTechGuy Fundraiser continues, our goal is $3000. Any help is appreciated. You can kick in with a Paypal account or a credit card. No further ID needed.

For details click here for the progress check the thermometer to the right and to kick in hit DaTipJar”.

…at least that what it sounded like to me.

On Morning Joe he and Joe Scarborough were talking the political landscape and Morial started talking about “voter suppression”.

Never mind that my Bank that I visit several times a week in person requred ID for withdrawals. Never mind that my local Comcast office where I pay my bill requires me to show a picture ID when I pay with my credit card. Never mind that this Friday past, I had to show a photo ID to make an $8 purchase at Market Basket in Fitchburg

Joe Scarbrough who often drives me up the wall wasn’t going to let him get away with this and began questioning him on voter id laws. Scarborough questioned him as Mika Brzezinski (wisely) remained silent as the Morial’s argument went from place to place until he retreated finally to “motivation”.

Yes you heard that right he made the argument that showing ID to vote laws should be opposed because of the “motivation” of those who support those laws.

Ok Mr. Morial, let me refer you to a book I quote often. Robert Caro’s Master of the Senate, the third volume in his series The Years of Lyndon Johnson.

The book tells the story of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the very first Civil Rights act to pass in decades. It tells how Lyndon Johnson skillfully navigated the waters to get a bill that would not be filibustered by the Southern Caucus through the house while thwarting GOP efforts to make it stronger.

But the most important aspect of the Civil Rights bill of 1957 for Lyndon Johnson was that HE would get credit for its passing.

The failed presidential bid of Richard Russell in 1952 convinced both Johnson and Russell his patron that no Southerner could be elected president until they were “made clean” on Civil Rights. Russell was clearly the most qualified and most respected Democratic Candidate in 1952 but in state after state he was told privately by party members that they could not support a southerner (Russell for all his virtues and he had many, was an arch segregationist who opposed military integration and whose opinion of the races were frankly startling). Russell dreamed of seeing a southerner in the White house and was determined to give Lyndon the chance he did not have.

Lyndon Johnson ambitions had always been toward the white house. Once he was convinced that support for civil rights was a sine-qua-non for him to become a credible candidate for the White House Lyndon Johnson was determined to be not only the supporter of a Civil Rights bill in the Senate but he would be the pilot steering such a bill through every shoal so that the final bill came to port it would be flying the flag of Lyndon Baines Johnson. The story of his success in this seemingly impossible goal is a tale of watching a political master at his finest.

His entire motivation being the goal of electing Lyndon Johnson president of the United States. Nobody reading this history can doubt this for a moment.

So under Mark Morial’s argument that he made on Morning Joe today, the voting rights act of 1957 should not have been supported because the motivation of the person responsible for its passage was his own political power.

I can imagine Mark Morial of the Urban league now in 1957: “I’d like to know why Lyndon Johnson is supporting this NOW?”, “What is the motivation for Lyndon Johnson supporting a civil rights law in 1957 when he has not supported such laws before?”

When you have no credible arguments this is what you are reduced to.

On Monday the Twin City Tea Party held its first meeting at a new location Cornerstones Restaurant in Leominster.

In addition to several local, state and congressional candidates who mixed with the crowd there were top primary speakers. Brad Marston of Four Tier Strategies on the use of social media in campaigns:

A political operative in shadow

It was quite an education and every candidate in the room soaked it up, but the biggest education of the night came from Bonnie Johnson:

She talked about election law in Massachusetts and it’s enforcement or non-enforcement of election laws, many times due to simple ignorance. But the big bomb she dropped was referenced in my latest for the Examiner:

Every January Massachusetts Cities and town send out a city/town census to every residence. It lists the registered voters in the dwelling and how they are registered. I’ve filled it out every year without a thought, not noticing the warnings on the form if it is not done.

There is a warning on the bottom of the form saying: Failure to return this form may affect your voting status. I never paid much mind to it but Bonnie really dropped a bombshell on what that actually means:

If the form is not returned the people on them are marked as an “inactive” voter. By law an “inactive” voter who attempts to vote must fill out and sign a form and provide proof of both residence and identity to be able to vote.

Read the whole thing.

The problem seems to be a lot of people are not aware of the law, and if you want it enforced you need people at the polls volunteering and working to ensure it IS enforced.

OK if you are in Massachusetts and care about honest elections, are you willing to give a day working at a polling place to do something about it?

Update: Welcome Insty readers, if you’re up for some provocative reading I have a challenge for American Muslims, an Answer to Anonymous declaration of War on the US and of course there is my weekly under the fedora column here or here.

Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”

“To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”

“The dog did nothing in the night-time.”

“That was the curious incident,”

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Sherlock Holmes Sliverblaze

While writing my Mitt Romney post this morning I did a search for Nikki Haley on google where I noticed this at the Huffington Post:

Civil rights leaders bothered by South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley’s stance on issues like requiring voters to show their IDs at the polls are reminding the governor that she is a minority, too.

“She couldn’t vote before 1965, just as I couldn’t,” said the Rev. Jesse Jackson, referring to the Voting Rights Act that abolished poll taxes, literacy tests and other ways whites across the Deep South kept minorities from voting.

Jackson and other critics have said the law is merely a new, covert effort to take away the right to vote from older blacks and poor people, groups who historically tend to vote for Democrats and are less likely to have a driver’s license or other government-issued ID.

Now I have a friend who moved to SC last year and noted that many elderly poor blacks do not have such ID’s (I think a problem easily solved by grandfathering people into such a law) but what strikes me about this argument is the dog that didn’t bark.

Yesterday I was picking up in the Kitchen when I noticed a form that came a few weeks ago that I forgot about.  It was concerning a class action suit against WalMart and NetFlix concerning price-fixing on DVDs.  Depending on what I do I can apply for a gift card as part of a settlement against the companies or retain my right to sue them. 

Nothing better illustrates the lie behind Jackson’s words, other than the fact he said them, than that letter on my table.

We live in the most litigious society that has ever existed, you can’t watch TV for more than a few minutes without seeing an ad for some lawyer promising you a large settlement if you are injured.  Jackson himself knows that discrimination suits of all types, have proven successful and profitable for lawyers and political action groups alike.

Now imagine the banks, the supermarkets the liqueur stores that all require ID to buy, or use a credit card, or to cash a check, or make a withdrawal. Imagine the amounts of money these companies are worth and think of all the lawyers who might want the piece of a suit against them.

Yet nowhere do I see such a suit on the Federal or the state level, a small lawyer might make their druthers launching a suit like this against a small supermarket chain, such a settlement could cement the reputation of a young energetic lawyer…

…yet we don’t see it, not a one.

Why, because those lawyers know such a suit would be tossed out faster than a freeloading relative at a miser’s house.

The lawyers who launched the suit against WalMart and NetFlix are not acting out of altruism, they are going to get a very good payday out of their suit, yet those same lawyers don’t see a payday in suing Market Basket on my behalf for making me show an ID or Bank of America for making those on assistance show ID before cash their government provided checks or they withdraw their government direct deposit checks. Even as the federal government cries discrimination at the voting booth, somehow the same act at a bank fails to tempt our legal class into action.

That’s why I think Jessie Jackson and every democratic pols who cries “discrimination” is full of it. There is only one reason to oppose a voter ID law (particularly one that provides ID for those who can’t afford it), it’s to preserve the ability to steal an election.

When I see Jessie Jackson and the democrats launch a suit against banks who require ID or for supermarkets et/al then I’ll believe them, otherwise don’t waste my time.

…wasn’t shot by me.

More details here.

Exit question: Given the stakes in a presidential election year, the tactics we’ve already seen, the amount of money involved and the plausible deniability provided by superpacs, can any rational person without an agenda make the case that a campaign will NOT use such a tactic to win?

I submit that the most logical reason to oppose voter ID laws is to preserve the ability of one’s allies to commit fraud.

To boost the British Economy, I’d Tax all foreigners living abroad illegal

Monty Python’s Flying Circus Season 1

We’ve seen a lot of talk on laws like Show ID to vote, but if you want to actually understand what the end game is for our liberal friends so no farther than this story:

New Haven Mayor John DeStefano plans to ask the state Legislature to allow illegal immigrants who live in the city to be able vote in municipal elections.

DeStefano said on Tuesday that the proposal would build a more engaged community and follows the lead of other cities, the New Haven Independent reports

One people who are not citizens are on the voting rolls for local elections it’s only a hop skip and jump before this becomes the cause celebre of the left due to “fairness”

Remember this is not about fairness, or equality or anything else other than keeping power. That is the goal, that is the long game and whatever tactics you use to keep power, they’re legit.

As a friend one said: “If you start from the premise they are all Marxists, it all makes perfect sense“.

…from the first congressman outside Illinois to endorse Barack Obama (emphasis mine):

Voting the names of the dead, and the nonexistent, and the too-mentally-impaired to function, cancels out the votes of citizens who are exercising their rights — that’s suppression by any light. If you doubt it exists, I don’t; I’ve heard the peddlers of these ballots brag about it, I’ve been asked to provide the funds for it, and I am confident it has changed at least a few close local election results.

In other words a former Democratic congressman is publicly declaring that he was not only personally of those who committed voter fraud, but was directly asked to participate and fund it.

Via Glenn. Breitbart is going to have a field day with this and I’m sure a republican congress will not ignore it.

Over to you Media Matters. (I suggest a liberal use of the word “disgruntled”)

Tonight at The Twin City Tea Party there was a straw poll of the attendees. Here are the Results:


1st Herman Cain 33.3%
2nd Mitt Romney 30.3%
3rd Rick Santorum 18.2%


1st Herman Cain 27.3%
2nd Newt Gingrich 21.2%
3rd Rick Santorum 15.2%

Note no ballot had the same person for Prez & VP

Ballot Penetration (appearing on a ballot for prez or VP)

1st Herman Cain 60.6%
2nd Rick Santorum 33.3%
2nd Mitt Romney 33.3%

Fitchburg Mayor

1st Blank 39.4%
2nd Joe Solomito 33.3%
3rd Lisa Wong 18.2%

Show ID to Vote

1st Yes 97%
2nd Blank 3%

I wonder what Stacy will say about that.

Update: I guess the Twin City Tea Party was a foreshadowing of this poll

Rick Perry has tumbled by more than 20 percentage points over the past month among Republican presidential primary voters and is now second to Herman Cain, who leads the field with 28%.

Mitt Romney received little benefit from Perrys fall, garnering 17% of the vote for third place.

As for President Barack Obama, both his job approval (42%) and the percentage who believe he deserves re-election (37%) are little changed from recent polls, but he does seem to be winning back some supporters who have been disappointed in his job performance.

via Kerry Picket and Sunshine State Sarah who comments:

Note the dates of the Zogby poll. It just finished today, so this is a direct reaction to Cain’s earth-shattering Florida straw poll win and many of the voters were sampled before Cain’s incredibly powerful speech to the Presidency 5 delegates.

Morning Joe Hardest hit.