Archive for Election

Winning Elections the Old Fashioned Way

Stealing ‘em:

The Colorado secretary of state is investigating allegations that some Boulder County Republican election judges are actually Democrats in disguise.

Boulder County GOP Chairwoman Ellyn Hilliard initially raised the alarm when visiting polling locations where she didn’t recognize some of the GOP judges who are tasked with comparing voter signatures on mail ballots to protect against vote fraud.

She became alarmed when she noticed some ballots whose signatures clearly didn’t match those on file for the voter being accepted.

“One of them was a Democrat who had changed party affiliation on Oct. 10…

Election officials swear they tried to get Republicans, but Republicans wouldn’t participate.

Okay…

Prior to a rally for Republican Senate candidate Cory Gardner Tuesday, Hilliard made what the Camera called an “emotional” plea for more Republicans to volunteer to oversee the election, telling attendees that elections officials are currently helping “the Democrats steal the election.”

She cited instances in which she said she saw judges accept ballots with signatures that clearly did not match those on file for the voter. At one point, the Camera reported, Hilliard had tears in her eyes.

“I’m sorry,” she said. “I get emotional because this is how they win.”

Voting machines that magically change Rs to Ds; judges who are barely even RINOs; plus good old-fashioned ballot box stuffing; it is your daddy’s Democrat Party.

Comments

Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People?

Liberals just want to help people.

God help us:

Obamacare premiums aren’t rising everywhere. They just have a way of finding the states with the biggest Senate races. And that could be very bad timing for Democrats in two of the party’s key contests.

Double-digit rate hikes for individual health insurance plans have become an issue in the Louisiana and Iowa Senate races over the past week, where the Republican candidates are hammering their Democratic opponents for the steep premium increases on the way next year for some customers under the Affordable Care Act.

In Louisiana, Rep. Bill Cassidy called the double-digit increases for some insurers — including Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana — “another hurdle for families and businesses already struggling under the demands of Obamacare” and blamed Democrats for “false promises” that premiums would go down. In Iowa, Senate candidate Joni Ernst used the sharp rate increases for two insurers to blast the Democratic candidate, Rep. Bruce Braley, for supporting the law, charging that “thousands of Iowans are paying for it.”

Poor Democrats. The bad news keeps on coming:

Having health insurance is no panacea for high medical costs. Overall, 1 in 4 privately insured U.S. adults say they don’t have much confidence in their ability to pay for a major, unexpected medical expense.

A new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research may help explain why President Barack Obama faces such strong headwinds in trying to persuade the public that his health care law is working to hold costs down.

The poll found the biggest financial concerns were among people with so-called high-deductible plans that require patients to pay a significant share of their medical bills each year before insurance kicks in.

Such plans already represented a growing share of employer-sponsored coverage. And now, they’re also the mainstay of the new health insurance exchanges created by Obama’s law.

ObamaCare was supposed to “bend the cost curve” of health care. Instead, it’s us who get bent. I can’t wait for Election Night. It’ll be like ISIS snuff videos without the orange jumpsuits.

Comments

Health Care Costs

Obama claims that health care costs are dropping. This guy says they are rising dramatically and will negatively affect the mid-terms. Which is correct?

When the supermajority of Democrats in the Senate passed the ironically named Affordable Care Act in 2009, one of the chief requirements of the bill was to force health insurers, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and health care centers to share in the staggering $2 trillion cost over the next decade. But once made law, President Obama pushed off the cost until well, just later — certainly not before the 2012 election.

That later is now, or Sept. 30, to be precise. Remember when the president said the 10-year cost for his health care reform would be $850 billion and that no one would pay an additional penny in taxes? Ha. Insurers will have to pony up some $8 billion on the last day of September, and guess where they’re going to get the cash? Straight from your wallet, your purse.

Here are some numbers, straight from my own checkbook register. In October 2011, before the start of Obamacare, I was paying $386 a month. Yes, fairly reasonable, but less so when you factor in my $10,000 deductible (and two teenage children who keep falling off things). The following October, the premiums rose 23 percent to $474.

In October 2013, my monthly rate rose again, nearly 32 percent, to $623. Same exact coverage, just more money. Then, this year, come Sept. 30, my new premiums will be $1,097. That’s a 76 percent increase from the previous year, and, all told, my premiums have risen 184 percent in just three years.

But that’s not all. My deductible has also jumped to $12,000 (but my out-of-pocket expenses are, under some complicated formula my Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield health adviser couldn’t really explain, going to be higher than that, maybe substantially so).

Now, in order to get a break on my costs (a federal subsidy paid, of course, by other taxpayers), I’d have to make less than $62,000 for a family of three. That means someone making $62,001, which means about $46,500 a year or $3,875 a month after taxes (if he’s lucky), will be shelling more than a quarter of his money for health care.

And back to why. Although Mr. Obama said he would hold those bad old insurance companies accountable and make them pay, pay, pay, there are no mechanisms within the law to keep providers from doing just what they’re doing now — passing the cost on to you in the form of new, much higher premiums.

What’s more, after Mr. Obama uttered what Politifact called the “Lie of the Year” — that if you liked your insurance, you could keep it — implementation of many of the more onerous parts of the law were delayed. Now, though, all those so-called “subpar” insurance policies are being eliminated.

That is putting Obamacare right back on the front burner for this midterm election, just as it was in the 2010 midterms. Then, voters mobbed summer town halls to vent, and Republicans went on to trounce Democrats, pulling off the largest seat swap in any midterm since 1948.

Right about now, across the country, Americans are either getting their monthly bills for drastically higher premiums, or they’ve already got them and are beginning to shop for new insurance in preparation for the coming open-enrollment season this fall. But they’re no doubt finding that the new policies mandated by Obamacare are raising costs sky-high — there’s nothing cheaper.

And there’s more. But here’s a question: Which experience have you had – the one where your costs go down or stay about the same, or the one where they skyrocket? In our household the monthly went up about 20% and the deductible more than doubled (only possible in Massachusetts because of the federal plan; our previous state law kept it to something like $4000 per year for a family). BUT, our co-pay dropped from $40 per visit to $35 per visit. Sweet!!!!

So tell us what you think. I am hoping that the writer is correct, that Americans will move to the Right, but I am not counting on it.

– Aggie

Comments (2)

Voting Early and Often…and Oftener

Try not to let this story destroy your faith in the integrity of elections

A crosscheck of voter rolls in Virginia and Maryland turned up 44,000 people registered in both states, a vote-integrity group reported Wednesday.

And that’s just the beginning.

Working with the Privileges and Elections committees of the state House and Senate, VVA identified 31,000 dead voters via the Social Security Administration’s Death Master File. Subsequent processing by SBE found 40,000 to 60,000 dead voter registrations.

“Dead voter registrations are prime targets for voter fraud which generate few complaints,” George noted.

More broadly, George said, “Virginia must control the registration process, as well as the form used to register voters. The current system is the perfect vehicle for identity theft and ‘lost’ registrations.”

“There needs to be a clearinghouse for all voter fraud referrals statewide,” he said. “The SBE would be the perfect place to assume that role and provide transparency for the public.”

DeLancy and Wheeler urged the board to open its voter-crosscheck data to the public and to publicize cases of voter fraud.

DeLancy said groups that downplay or dismiss the incidence of ongoing voting irregularities use “pretzel logic.”

Maryland is a solidly Democrat state, but Virginia’s 13 electoral college votes are up for grabs. And grabbing is just what the Democrats do, with all four hands.

Comments

Voting Early and Often

As North Carolina goes, so goes the nation:

State elections officials said Wednesday that they’re investigating hundreds of cases of voters who appear to have voted in two states and several dozen who appear to have voted after their deaths.

Strach said North Carolina’s check found 765 registered North Carolina voters who appear to match registered voters in other states on their first names, last names, dates of birth and the final four digits of their Social Security numbers. Those voters appear to have voted in North Carolina in 2012 and also voted in another state in 2012.

“Now we have to look individually at each one,” Strach said. “Could there have been data error?”

The crosscheck also found 35,570 voters in North Carolina who voted in 2012 whose first names, last names and dates of birth match those of voters who voted in other states in 2012, but whose Social Security numbers were not matched.

Strach also said a “10-year death audit” found 13,416 deceased voters who had not been removed from voter rolls as of October 2013. Eighty-one of those individuals, she said, died before an election in which they are recorded as having voted.

Strach cautioned that about 30 of those 81 voters appear to have legally cast their votes early via absentee ballot and then died before Election Day.

However, she said, “There are between 40 and 50 [voters] who had died at a time that that’s not possible.”

“I think the big bombshell today is that you have documented voter fraud that has occurred,” said Rep. Tim Moore, R-Cleveland. “We have over 36,000 people who apparently voted in this state illegally and committed felonies.”

And you want to deny the dead and felonious the right to vote? Fascist!

Comments (1)

It’s Constitutional, Bitches!

The First Amendment, I mean.

Isn’t that how one traditionally announces SCOTUS verdicts?

The Supreme Court took another step Wednesday toward giving wealthy donors more freedom to influence federal elections.

The justices ruled 5-4, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, that limits on the total amount of money donors can give to all candidates, committees and political parties are unconstitutional. The decision frees the nation’s wealthiest donors to have greater influence in federal elections.

The decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission marks the latest round in the bitter national debate over the role of money in American politics. It’s the most important campaign-finance ruling since the high court’s 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts independently to influence elections.

The case pitted the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech – which the justices previously have equated with spending money in elections – against the government’s interest in preventing political corruption.

And the First Amendment won. Imagine that.

From the opinion:

Roberts said the aggregate contribution limits do little, if anything, to address the permissible objective of battling corruption, “while seriously restricting participation in the democratic process.”

“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects,” Roberts said in his opinion.

The Left keeps challenging the Bill of Rights. Let’s hope they keep losing.

Comments (1)

Oh, Look. The NY Times Reports About Corruption In The Obama Election Campaign

He’s not our shiny new President any more.

The donations kept pouring in: hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to President Obama and more than a dozen members of Congress, carefully routed through the families of two wealthy brothers in Florida.

They had good reason to be generous. The two men, Roberto and William Isaias, are fugitives from Ecuador, which has angrily pressed Washington to turn them over, to no avail. A year after their relatives gave $90,000 to help re-elect Mr. Obama, the administration rejected Ecuador’s extradition request for the men, fueling accusations that such donations were helping to keep the brothers and their families safely on American soil.

“The Isaias brothers fled to Miami not to live off their work, something just, but to buy themselves more mansions and Rolls-Royces and to finance American political campaigns,” President Rafael Correa of Ecuador told reporters last month. “That’s what has given them protection,” he added, an allegation the Obama administration and members of Congress reject.

You mean that the 1% propped Obama up? Seriously?

But beyond the political hostilities between the two nations, campaign finance experts say, the extensive donations in the Isaias case create the appearance of a financial conflict of interest that hangs over Washington’s decisions on the brothers’ fate. While the contributions were not illegal, analysts say they have opened the already politicized nature of extradition requests to greater scrutiny and raised questions about the access to power the donations provide.

Some analysts have even questioned whether fund-raisers have specifically sought out the two men for contributions because it was clear they were in trouble and would be more likely to give.

:-0 I. Am. Shocked.

“There is a certain mercenary aura on the Hill when it comes to overlap of fund-raising from wealthy individuals with problems,” said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a research group. “The key elements are all there: They are wealthy and have problems that are solved by the discretionary judgment of someone in the administration. They have tons of money and are willing to write checks all over the place.”

Donations from the relatives of criminal suspects have proved vexing before. In 2012, Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign said it would return more than $200,000 raised by relatives of a Mexican casino magnate who had fled charges in the United States and sought a pardon to return.

The White House says that the decisions in the Isaias case are not influenced by donations.

Phew. Because if decisions were influenced by donations, that would be wrong. And the Most Transparent Administration Evah™ wouldn’t do something wrong.

– Aggier

Comments

Is She Cherokee Too?

If I can revive the Austin-Boston axis for a moment, may I advise our Lone Star friends that they can provide all the chapters and verses they want to prove that the lovely and talented Wendy Davis is a lying self-promter in pink tennis shoes.

Minus the tennis shoes, so was Elizabeth Warren. Who is now the Senior Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

You have been warned:

[I]t turns out that part of Wendy Davis’s tale is fictionalized and the rest is told selectively.

She was divorced when she was 21, not 19, which wouldn’t matter, except maybe for the fact that she testified to it in federal court. But single teen mother fits so much better in a headline. It also wouldn’t be worth mentioning that she really only lived in a trailer for a few months—if she had actually been raised in poverty. Wendy’s family was middle-class, it turns out. Other details about her upbringing were also fudged. Her parents divorced, true, but her dad remained in her life. As for her mother’s supposed sixth-grade education, that was hard to square with recently unearthed yearbook photos of her in high school.

Wendy’s own marital history isn’t the feminist saga embraced by the media. After divorcing her first husband, she married a friend of her father’s, a man 13 years her senior named Jeffrey Davis. She had a child with him and then left both her daughters—Davis’s and her first husband’s—in his care while she went off to school.

Jeff Davis paid her tuition at TCU and Harvard—cashing in his retirement savings to do so—but Wendy apparently met someone at Harvard and the couple divorced. Jeffrey cited adultery in his original divorce petition. The final decree makes no mention of that, but a judge awarded Jeffrey custody of their daughter. The other one elected to stay with him.

“It was ironic,” Wendy’s second ex-husband told Wayne Slater. “I made the last [tuition] payment, and it was the next day she left.”

Look, who am I to people how to vote? I voted for Jimmy Carter. Twice. But I do think people should be acquainted with they candidates for whom they vote. Elizabeth Warren slipped into and out of her entirely fabricated Indian identity like it was a terry bathrobe. Her casual and intermittent ethnic impersonation struck some of those who were the real thing as “spiritual genocide” (oversensitive, perhaps, but walk a mile in their moccasins). In supporting abortion, Wendy Davis is in favor a rather more real genocide, though one the Supreme Court has managed to find protected by the Constitution.

That’s enough to win her the majority of women and liberals—hopefully not a majority of the Texas electorate. A few lies, whoppers, howlers, and resume embellishments won’t dissuade her Democrat base. In fact, the more absurd the lie, the more likely they are to believe it. Like our fellow Bay Staters who believed that someone whiter than Taylor Swift was Sacagawea on the inside. On the basis of cheekbones.

Hey, if we believe the president was born in Hawaii (and we do, we do), we’ll believe anything.

Comments

What if They Held a Campaign Appearance and Nobody Came?

Obama is dangerous to Democrat Senators and other living things:

Do you ever wonder, though, if this guy imagined even in his darkest moments in the Hopenchange-y summer of 2008 that he’d one day be so toxic to the other party that red-state Dems would duck him when he came to town? That’s par for the course for any president, but not every president is a would-be post-partisan messiah.

[T]here’s no reason to be grumpy about Hagan pulling the “Barack who?” routine at this point. Why hand the Americans for Prosperity ad team another soundbite to use against her just because she wouldn’t give them a photo op to use?

I have it on good authority that Sen. Kay Hagen actually scheduled elective root canal and gum grafting for yesterday rather than be seen with this dill weed. (And she’s already got dentures!) If she had another appendix, she would have had that taken out too.

Obama couldn’t be more toxic to Democrat candidates if he gulped a Polonium milkshake, wore a suit spun from the wool of an anthrax-infected sheep, and French-kissed Typhoid Mary. To Southern voters, he is the southern pole of a magnet, repelling anyone who approaches him.

And he is such a spoiled petulant brat that he can’t leave the snub untouched. He would rather take her down with him than act mature (act, I said) and let it lie. That’s another reason he can’t be ex-President: besides not wanting to leave his precious legacy in the hands others less virtuous than he. No one truly gets him but him.

Comments

Against the Family

Today, for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of Hillary Clinton:

Aides on Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign kept a detailed list of party colleagues who staffers believed had betrayed her during the long and bitter primary battle with President Obama, a new book reveals.

The list included rankings, with those who were considered the most egregious traitors by Clinton loyalists receiving the worst possible score of 7 on a point scale.

Then-Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who would ultimately succeed Clinton as Secretary of State in the Obama administration, was among those receiving the blackest of black marks, according to the book HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton by The Hill’s Amie Parnes and Politico’s Jonathan Allen.

So too was Kerry’s Senate colleague from Massachusetts, Edward Kennedy, who died in 2009. Also on the political hit-list were Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) as well as Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Rob Andrews (D-N.J.) and Baron Hill (D-Ind).

The book makes clear the depth of the wounds inflicted during the primary struggle.

“Years later,” Parnes and Allen write, Clinton aides “would joke about the fates of folks who they felt had betrayed them. ‘Bill Richardson: investigated; John Edwards: disgraced by scandal; Chris Dodd: stepped down,’ one said to another. ‘Ted Kennedy,’ the aide continued, lowering his voice to a whisper for the punch line, ‘dead.’”

Can’t argue with that. Ted Kennedy is still dead, and Barack Obama still isn’t “getting him coffee”.

But why a seven-point scale? What else uses seven points? I see Denmark uses seven different grades in its education system, but except for Danish porn, why would the Clintons know or care?

Given the unfortunate outcomes of the other rats, this concern is understandable:

The ill-feeling between Hillary Clinton and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) was at one point so intense that the Missouri Democrat told a friend that she was scared of getting stuck alone with the former first lady.

“I really don’t want to be in an elevator alone with her,” McCaskill told the friend, according to the forthcoming book HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton by The Hill’s Amie Parnes and Politico’s Jonathan Allen.

The deep tension between Clinton and McCaskill first formed after McCaskill made remarks on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that struck raw nerves for both Hillary and President Clinton.

In 2006, McCaskill was debating then-Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.) on the Sunday morning political show. The two were in the midst of a campaign that McCaskill ultimately won, and the Clintons had given her strong backing.

But when the subject of Bill Clinton came up, McCaskill said, “He’s been a great leader but I don’t want my daughter near him.”

You think that’s a little paranoid? Just remember Vince Foster and Juanita Broderick, and you’d wear kevlar and a chastity belt when near this pair.

I hope Chris Christie gets what he deserves, no more, no less. I hope the same for Hillary.

Comments

NY Times Goes After Clinton Foundation?

Oh well. The election is a long way off.

Soon after the 10th anniversary of the foundation bearing his name, Bill Clinton met with a small group of aides and two lawyers from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. Two weeks of interviews with Clinton Foundation executives and former employees had led the lawyers to some unsettling conclusions.

The review echoed criticism of Mr. Clinton’s early years in the White House: For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.

And concern was rising inside and outside the organization about Douglas J. Band, a onetime personal assistant to Mr. Clinton who had started a lucrative corporate consulting firm — which Mr. Clinton joined as a paid adviser — while overseeing the Clinton Global Initiative, the foundation’s glitzy annual gathering of chief executives, heads of state, and celebrities.

The review set off more than a year of internal debate, and spurred an evolution in the organization that included Mr. Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea, taking on a dominant new role as the family grappled with the question of whether the foundation — and its globe-spanning efforts to combat AIDS, obesity and poverty — would survive its founder.

Now those efforts are taking on new urgency. In the coming weeks, the foundation, long Mr. Clinton’s domain since its formation in 2001, will become the nerve center of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s increasingly busy public life.

It’s a long article, but the implication is that the Clintons are corrupt! I’m shocked!!!

And as long time readers of this blog know, my opinion is that the media is corrupt, the government is corrupt and, sadly, the legal system is corrupt. Honestly, I didn’t always believe this, but it is difficult to escape this conclusion four and a half years into the Obama presidency. So here’s my prediction: Hillary Clinton will be the first female president of the United States. She will win in 2016. God help us all.

PS: Learn more about their “charity” here.

– Aggie

Comments (1)

Riddle

How is ObamaCare different from a nationwide Democrat campaign commercial, just in time for the 2014 midterms?

It’s not! Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!! Get it?

You will.

It will make you stronger. It will give you peace of mind and make you feel like a winner. Health insurance is what the whole country has been talking about, so don’t be left out.

Sound like a sales pitch? Get ready for a lot more. As President Barack Obama’s health care law moves from theory to reality in the coming months, its success may hinge on whether the best minds in advertising can reach one of the hardest-to-find parts of the population: people without health coverage.

The campaign won’t come cheap: The total amount to be spent nationally on publicity, marketing and advertising will be at least $684 million, according to data compiled The Associated Press from federal and state sources.

You can buy a lot of votes for $684 million. Mine, for instance.

AP research from all 50 states shows the amount of government spending will range from a low of 46 cents per capita in Wisconsin, which has ceded responsibility for its health insurance exchange to the federal government, to $9.23 per capita in West Virginia, which opted for a state-federal partnership.

About $4.8 million in public money will be spent trying to sign up New Jersey’s 1.3 million uninsured, for example, compared to the nearly $28 million spent reaching out to Washington state’s much smaller 960,000.

Texas has the highest percentage of uninsured people in the nation, three times more than Illinois. But only a fourth as much public money will be spent on getting people enrolled in Texas.

Let’s see: Wisconsin and Texas have conservative Republican governors, so they get a pittance; West Virginia and Washington are friendlier to the regime, so they make a fortune. If this were just about educating people, the money would be proportionate. But it’s not. It’s about buying votes. President Obama is using hundreds of millions of federal dollars to finance a national congressional campaign for the Democrat Party.

Sleazy even for him.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »