Obama tries to disenfranchise Ohio voters who are serving in the US military

by 1389 on August 3, 2012

in 1389 (blog admin), 2012 US Elections, Barack Hussein Obama, election fraud, LTC Allen West, military, Ohio

US military personnel are likelier to vote Republican than Democrat. No wonder Obama and the Democrats want to keep them away from the polls! I consider this to be an insidious form of vote fraud.

Because active-duty and reserve military personnel are likely to be away from their home precincts on election day, each State needs to be proactive in making sure that their residents who are serving in the military have adequate opportunities to vote. In past elections, some servicemen deployed overseas received their absentee ballots too late to cast their ballots in time to be counted for the election. This is disgraceful.

Early voting allows military personnel who will be away on election day to cast their ballots and to know that their votes will be counted.

“As a Combat Veteran, for this President to unleash his campaign cronies against our Military is unconscionable…”

By Congressman Allen West on Friday, August 3, 2012 at 11:15am

As a retired Army officer I am appalled at the Obama administration’s actions to bring a lawsuit against the State of Ohio for the early voting privileges it extends to our Men and Women serving in uniform. To have the Commander in Chief make our US Servicemen and Women the target of a political attack to benefit his reelection actions is reprehensible. The voting privilege extended to these Warriors who represent the best among us should not be a part of the collective vision of this inept President who is more concerned about his reelection than sequestration. As a Combat Veteran,  for this President to unleash his campaign cronies against our Military is unconscionable….how dare this President compare the service, sacrifice, and commitment of those who Guard our liberties not as special and seek to compare them to everyone else. Barack Obama is undeserving of the title Commander-in-Chief.

Also see:


{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }

1 G T Baker August 6, 2012 at 12:18 pm

This shouldn’t be a surprise. After all it is what Democrats do with respect to our servicemen. Remember how, in 2000, down if Florida, for a number of the flimsiest of reasons, they tried to get the absentee ballots of our servicemen thrown out.

You’d think honest people would do everything possible to see our servicemen’s ballots were validated. But nooooo….. not the liberals.

Looks like nothing has changed in the liberal camp.

GB
Major, Sqdn Cmdr, USAF, 1960-74

2 William Dorich August 6, 2012 at 1:09 pm

Democrats are not interested in a true equal society where every citizens vote counts. I remember those issues about absentee ballots from our servicemen and women and what a disgrace that was. There ballots should be the first counted in any election, they defend that right with their very lives. But then, the Democrats don’t want to make it easy or available to our troops, they want to make sure they control the votes… or worse, make certain that illegal aliens can vote, all 185,000 in Florida, especially in this current election. Their effort or the lack there of by our Justice Department is more than apparent in places where voter ID has become an issue. I cannot cash a check, open a bank account, buy a house or a car, rent a vehicle, enter a government building, or get on an airplane without a photo ID, but showing a photo ID to vote is some alleged violation of civil rights? Pretending that poor blacks and Hispanics cannot obtain a photo ID is asinine… I bet if Photo ID was required to get their welfare check they would find it easy to obtain and fast!

Thank you for your service to our country.

3 Candlelight August 10, 2012 at 1:06 am

CzechRebel, blog admin here. We post our blog comment policy at http://1389blog.com/about/1389-blog-comment-policy/. We encourage readers to check it out before commenting. This seems like a good example of someone who has pushed the envelope a bit too far. So, we will be taking a look at this comment and making the appropriate remarks in italics.

Ohio used to have early voting for everyone and then they took it away except for military by laws that where passed by republicans. Obama isn’t trying to take anything away from the military or anyone. He is attempting to allow everyone that needs to vote early to have that right. He is attempting to open up more access for voters. Not restrict it. FYI the early voting ban applies to all non-active service members included vets. This whole interpretation of it and it’s absence of any relevant background is stunning in it’s lack of critical thinking.

So far, so good. Reader has an opposing point of view and is expressing his opinion. So, we approved it.

4 Candlelight August 10, 2012 at 1:17 am

Now, our reader is getting a bit more testy. So, we will be addressing him point by point.

- CzechRebel Blog Admin

Also read the suit itself.

This is our blog, so don’t be telling us what to do! If you could read, you would see that this post is based upon and includes an article written by Congressman Allen West. If you want him to read the suit, contact his Congressional office.

In it is stated that they are suing so that everyone can have the same 3 day in person voting period prior to an election. Not just active military.

We don’t really care! The point is that troops are getting a raw deal here. Hate the war, fine! We might not like it either. But don’t do dirt to the troops. If anyone should get to vote, it is the guy in uniform with his life on the line.

In it it is noted that in the 3 days prior to 2008 presidential election some 93,000 people cast their votes in ohio.

So what? A lot more people voted on Election Day. Get over it.

The law suit says nothing about restricting large groups from voting. The only people that are being restricted (if the past is any clue nearly 100k of them possibly) is the non-active military members of Ohio because of the law passed by republicans after 2008 that banned the practice with the exception of active military service members.

OK, you hate the soldiers. We get it. You hate Republicans, we got that too. The State of Ohio has the right to protect voters. If it feels that non-active military need more protection, that is up to the State of Ohio.

That violates the equal protection clause of the constitution and that’s why Poltifact has rated this claim FALSE!

Oh really? Are you a constitutional lawyer? A law professor? A judge? The so-called “equal protection clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment is pretty heady stuff. Absent a US Supreme Court decision, it is pretty difficult to say what that even means. Of course, there are a lot of people who don’t even believe that the alleged Fourteenth Amendment was ever ratified. But the funny thing about those people is that they do know how to count, and it’s pretty hard to persuasively argue that the Fourteenth Amendment was ever ratified if you can count.

5 1389 August 10, 2012 at 8:16 am

@Candlelight,

Non-active-duty military includes people who are not being deployed right now (but may be deployed at the time of the election itself).

Your assertion that this violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution is groundless. Otherwise, no law could make any distinctions among people based on their current involvement in any activity (as opposed to who they are).

The entire purpose of the lawsuit is to make it more difficult for a group of people to vote who statistically tend to lean Republican. Were that not the case, then no suit would have been filed, and you can take THAT to the bank.

6 Candlelight August 10, 2012 at 11:55 am

1389′s answer above seemed to have really hacked this troll off. Our comment policy clearly prohibits incoherent rambles. He rambled on for 349 words and 1977 total characters. We made the mistake of originally running all of them, but that just seemed to add fuel to the fire. So, we went back and edited out all but those few remarks that seem to make a lick of sense.

- CzechRebel Blog Admin

There is no special class of citizen that should have increased access to voting in elections in this country.

Good point! Funny how we go to so much trouble trying increase voting access for minorities, people who don’t speak English very well, people convicted of felonies, and so on and so forth. Seems like the shoe is on the other foot now.

Explain to me how this would restrict a block of voters that traditionally votes republican?

No! This is our blog and we don’t need to explain anything to you. We pay for it. Make a donation to our blog and we will consider answering a question or two.

7 Candlelight August 10, 2012 at 12:00 pm

Again, this is not too bad, but we will make a comment of two here, in italics, just the same.
CzechRebel Blog Admin

sorry for the bad grammar, I just woke up.

We don’t really care about your grammar. They do have word processors that fix grammar if it really bothers you that badly.

But i urge you to read the lawsuit itself if you wish to know it’s purpose.

Again, our blog! Don’t tell us what to do!

Here’s a gem from poltifact that rated this claim false.

Former Democratic congressman John Boccieri of Alliance, a Lt. Col. in the U.S. Air Force Reserves, issued a statement that accused Republicans of distortion.

“This is about restoring equal and fair access to early voting and in no way asks for restrictions to voting,” Boccieri said. “Anything said otherwise is completely false. Period. And as a member of the American Legion and a lifetime member of the AMVETS, I find these claims outrageous.”

So, what! The guy is a Democrat. He gets richer by keeping Obama in office. He is not the first guy to retire from the military and then wants ill will for the guys on the line. I so far too many World War II vets who had ill will towards the soldiers who had just returned from Vietnam. Sen. Kerry, a bona fide Vietnam vet was no friend of the guys on the line. So, let Boccieri be outraged. So, is Col. Allan West.

8 1389 August 10, 2012 at 6:15 pm

@Candlelight,

Of course John Boccieri would say that. He’s a former Democrat congressman. He’ll say anything that helps the Demonrats.

9 1389 August 10, 2012 at 6:23 pm

@Candlelight,

Wrong.

People not in the military, who have careers that take them overseas (and so forth), have a much easier time getting absentee ballots than do the military.

There is already such massive fraud involving people who are NOT in the military abusing the absentee ballot and early voting options that I see no problem with restricting them. Otherwise, people (generally Democrats, who commit the overwhelming majority of vote fraud in the US) who live year-round in Ohio will demand the “right” to vote earlier and earlier, which gives them much more time to find fraudulent ways to game the system to cast more than one vote per person.

AS I SAID EARLIER, if you were literate enough to read the article (which you are NOT), military voters have often been defrauded out of their right to vote by corrupt election officials (and probably equally corrupt military bureaucrats) stopping them from getting their absentee ballots in time to vote in the election. If you were truly interested in leveling the playing field (which you are NOT) you would favor criminal penalties for everyone who has been involved in preventing military personnel from exercising their franchise in previous elections, and you would also favor overturning all previous elections that might have been skewed by exclusion of military voters. Try that one on for size!

There is NOTHING unfair about making special provisions for people in the military. MANY laws at all levels of government already do that, and never before has any of that been considered unconstitutional.

10 Candlelight August 10, 2012 at 8:24 pm

Some trolls just won’t quit! This long rambling bunch of nonsense only took 328 words and ate up only 1784 characters. We won’t bore you with the who rant, but we will address some of it in italics.

- CzechRebel Blog Admin

ad hominem and evasion!?!?

We guess this is in response to 1389′s answer to his last rant. We guess he doesn’t know the meaning of those big words.

what did i do to deserve that?

He has to ask?

Have you read the suit?

No! We are sure that an army of lawyers are reading it already. We bet the lowest paid guy is billing at least $300 per hour. However, I will make make you a great offer! Just donate a mere $100 to the 1389 blog and give us a link to the briefs from all parties involved. I will read them over and let you know what I think. No money? Well, I am not going to read the suit and comment on it.

Also where you speaking of your one paragraph “article” or the article you simply link to without citing.

Yes, that is the general idea of a blog. It is to spread data around the Internet world. It might be a long original article. It might be a few words with a link elsewhere. Come join us in the 21st Century. Those of us who have been here for over a decade kind of like it.

leaving it up to the reader to click on and decide which of their arguments and evidence supports your argument?

Oh yes! Readers may decide. We respect their ability and their right to do exactly that. It’s up to our readers to read whatever they like from our blog, to click links or not as they please, and to do as much of their own research as they see fit. There is a television network with the motto, “We report; you decide.” The liberals all hate it. I guess there is something about a human being having the power to decide for himself after having been provided with some new data that is highly offensive to liberals who believe that only a far-left-wing government should do the deciding.

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: