art credit : avalonboro.net

All Election results are at Cleveland.com. Below are the results for the two Issues you've been reading about on this blog:

Issue 2, the Ohio constitutional anti-monopoly amendment, passed, allowing the Ohio Ballot Board to regulate future ballot measures dealing with monopolies. The votes:

Yes  157,155

No   148,421

Issue 3, to legalize marijuana, failed. The votes:

Yes  123,493

No   188,434

Good!

# # #

Responsible Ohio, Progress Ohio & Ex- Ohio Democratic Party Staffer Deploy Double Super Secret Twitter Ninja's to pass Marijuana Monopoly in Ohio

A lot has been written on why voters should vote no on the Responsible Ohio's Issue 3 Marijuana Monopoly in the upcoming November election. 

Be it for religious reasons, medical disagreements, protecting the Ohio Constitution from being used as a tool to create monopolies, they all present very good reasons to vote no on Issue 3.

The purpose of this post is to clear the room from the cloud of the weed smoke that hangs over Ohio and expose who is really behind Responsible Ohio (Issue 3) and Ian James, the driving force of wanting the green dollars from this "green" initiative.

The below video, put together by Citizens Against Responsible Ohio, is from leaked emails and leaked audio of a conference call on April 13th, 2015 between Responsible Ohio, the Democrat aligned Progress Ohio former Ohio Democrat party officials and Don McTigue - a long time go to attorney for the Ohio Democrats.

Progress Ohio, a political/public policy action committee of the Democratic persuasion, implicate some very subversive tactics used against Ohioans.  Many of the players involved are known supporters of none other than Hillary Clinton.

These tactics aim to intentionally mislead and misinform Ohioans via Social Media, as evidenced with their use of fake Ninja Twitter accounts.

Ian James, the architect and public face of Issue 3, was former Ohio GOP chairman Bob Bennett's hand chosen consultant to collect the signatures for the 2009 passage of the casino amendment. Now, James has the entire ODP 2016 presidntial campaign Fake Mutant Ninja Turtling for a marijuana monopoly, an exact replica of his 2009 casino sham. Even Ian's husband Stephen Letourneau is puff-puff passing through tens of thousands of dollars himself to Progress Ohio's ninja hive.

Known as Responsible Ohio's "puppet master" is Erik Greathouse, who was Chris Redfern's finance director at the Ohio Democratic Party under Ted Strickland until the Ed FitzGerald campaign.

Responsible Ohio's fake twitter ninja operation at Progress Ohio is run by Brian Hester, who most recently was ODP's deputy communications director. After putting lipstick on that pig for a year, Hester is now paid at Progress Ohio from $5,000 monthly from The Strategy Network for marijuana "research".

Progress Ohio's chair is Antoinette Wilson, who ran for ODP chair last fall, and who is widely expected to be Hillary Clinton's Ohio director in 2016.

 

Wilson, a long time political operative for the democrats in Ohio, worked on former Ohio SoS Jennifer Brunner's 2006 election & helped Brunner run the 2008 election in which Barack Obama won Ohio.  Along with being a Brunner flunky, Wilson worked on the campaigns of Dick Cordray, Treasurer , John Kerry’s 2004 Ohio primary director and as the 1996 Ohio political director of the Clinton/​Gore campaign.

 

Responsible Ohio and Progress Ohio also share Don McTigue, who sits on Progress Ohio's board, and drafted Issue 3 from its birth.

Tea Party members will remember McTigue as one of the attorneys who joined with Hillary Clinton attorney, Marc Elias, to file a lawsuit against the State of Ohio to block laws and orders they claim are designed to throw roadblocks between the voting booth and traditional Democratic constituencies.

So with all this Green Slime - we don't really even need to go into Responsible Ohio marketing to children with their "Buddie" character or lefty 1% er's using the Ohio Constitution to form a marijuana monopoly as a reason to Vote No on Issue 3!

Vote No on (Ir)Responsible Ohio's Issue 3!

 

Election Day November 3, 2015 issues

art credit: montgomerynews.com

Election Day November 3, 2015

For a look at the ballot initiatives that residents of Cuyahoga County will vote on next Tuesday, see a sample ballot in PDF format at the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections website here.  (You’ll need to enter your ward number and precinct letter; you will have those details on the voter registration card you received in the mail from the BoE.)

Some of the issues on the ballot fall under the Tea Party Patriot platform of fiscal responsibility and free markets.

If you are already confused because ballot Issues #2 (anti-monopoly) and #3 (legalize marijuana in Ohio) seem to be in conflict with each other, below are remarks by Ohio Senator Larry Obhof (R-Ohio Senate District 22) on what voters need to know about Issues 2 and 3 (h/t Ohio Christian Alliance Click here for OCA Voter Guide):

Issue 2 is specifically limited to initiatives that would purport to grant a private interest or group of private interests a “monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel” or a preferential tax rate or commercial right that is not “available to other similarly situated persons.”  It would not affect citizen-led initiatives, unless they are designed to give someone a monopoly or a special tax rate not available to similarly situated persons.
 

Issue 2 will protect the Ohio Constitution from special interests buying their way into the state’s foundational document.  Frankly, this is long overdue and should have been proposed after the casino amendment a few years ago.  Carve-outs for specific investors, protections from competition, the addresses of particular businesses … these things do not belong in the Ohio Constitution.  
 

Regardless of one’s position on the Issue, [some of the information being promoted concerning these issues is misleading or incorrect, as per below]:

1.   Statement: “There is no judicial review over the ballot board decision.”

This is simply wrong and is contradicted by the plain text of Issue. Section C clearly provides for judicial review and states that “The supreme court of Ohio shall have original, exclusive jurisdiction in any action that relates to this section.”

2. Statement: “This restriction could extend to issues such as ballot initiatives for workplace freedom, protection of life, etc.”  

Issue 2 would not affect a "workplace freedom amendment."  A workplace freedom amendment would not grant a “monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel” and it would not specify a tax rate or commercial right or license that is not available to similarly situated persons.  And keep in mind that even under Issue 2, one could specify a tax rate or provide commercial rights or licenses.  Issue 2 only affects such initiatives if they would carve out a special tax rate for a small group of people that is not available to other, similarly situated persons.

[Senator Obhof] cannot think of any logical basis for saying that Issue 2 would affect an initiative related to “protection of life.”  It is hard to conceive of a pro-life ballot initiative that would also grant someone a monopoly, or a special tax carve-out or commercial license not available to similarly situated persons.     

3. Statement: “Consider this scenario:  If Issue 2 had been in the Constitution prior to now, the effort that many concerned citizens launched to limit strip clubs’ hours of operation and activities, should it have needed to be placed on the ballot, would be subject to Issue 2’s provisions, as it would be deemed to limit the commercial activity of a state license holder (alcohol establishments).”  

Issue 2 would not apply to this scenario.  Issue 2 only applies to attempts to “grant or create a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel” or a preferential tax rate or commercial right that is not “available to other similarly situated persons.”  It would not affect an initiative to limit clubs’ hours or activities.  It would not even affect a ban on such clubs, unless the ban carved out specific clubs for special treatment (i.e., closing all clubs except for 10 of them, or closing all clubs except those owned by a specific operator or group of operators).   

4. Statement:  “If a citizen’s initiative goes before the Ballot Board there is no judicial recourse for the citizens to challenge the ruling by the Supreme Court.”  

First, this contradicts the earlier statement that there is no judicial review over the ballot board’s decision.  Obviously, review by the Ohio Supreme Court is “judicial review.”   

Second, the scope of review is not more or less under Issue 2 than it is for any other party in Ohio’s court system.  What does it mean to say “there is no judicial recourse … to challenge the ruling by the Supreme Court”?  When does anyone challenge a ruling by the Supreme Court?  On questions of state law, the Ohio Supreme Court is the court of last resort.  That is not any different under Issue 2 than it would be if you and I sued each other under state law.   

Thanks to Sen. Obhof for setting the record straight.

# # #

Democrats Backdoor Elderly to provide Healthcare for Illegal Immigrants

Just like they did in the Debt Ceiling fight, the Democrats in D.C. are stooping to their usual low and are again using scare tactics on the elderly. While ignoring the truth is something they do well, the calls for no cuts in Medicaid/Medicare spending by the Democrats in D.C. -- are NOT because of their concern over the elderly.

With the Supercommittee deadline fast approaching the Democrats in D.C. are playing both sides and coyly hiding behind their calls for no cuts in Medicare/Medicaid, or any other social services for the matter. 

In fact, and truth be told -- they do not want any cuts in Medicaid/Medicare not because it will hurt the elderly, but because these cuts may negatively impact their plans for Community Health Centers that will serve illegal immigrants...

From NewsMax --

Again we see the left pulling the emotional heartstrings and victimizing the elderly by using scare  tactics to

The culture war is moving from when life begins to how it should end. Like a drum beat, supporters of the Obama agenda are protesting that the elderly are consuming too many health resources, and their care needs to be cut back.

The current target of this unrelenting campaign against the elderly is the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, which is charged with devising a plan to reduce federal deficit spending by Nov. 23.

Among those calling for less care for seniors is H. Gilbert Welch of Dartmouth Medical College.

“If you were hoping to play the ‘death panel’ card, now’s your chance,” Welch says to his critics. “But don’t play it and then pretend you care about the budget.”

That brazen statement — pitting grandma's well-being against the nation's fiscal health — is a false choice. Future federal healthcare spending can be significantly reduced by repealing the expansion of Medicaid and the billions poured into medical and interpreter services for illegal immigrants under the Obama health law before these provisions go into effect.

The Obama health law, enacted 18 months ago, raided Medicare to fund new entitlements for low-income groups — in essence, robbing grandma to spread the wealth.

The law reduces future funding for Medicare by $575 billion over 10 years, and applies most of it ($410 billion) to increase Medicaid enrollment and benefits. The Obama health law transforms Medicaid from a temporary safety net to a permanent alternative to private health insurance.

Medicaid spending will top $900 billion in 2020 (state and federal funds), costing about the same as Medicare. That’s amazing considering the wave of baby boomers entering Medicare in this decade.

In addition to expanding Medicaid, and contrary to the president's promise, the new law allocates billions of dollars to expand services largely for illegal immigrants, including $11 billion for community health centers serving those ineligible for Medicaid. Why should grandma's care be cut to free up resources for lawbreakers?

This year the Department of Health and Human Services announced an Action Plan to increase spending on “promotores” or “trusted local people to serve as community health workers” and software for people with limited English to enroll in government programs.

Cuts to Medicare are not about reducing federal spending. They are about redistributing healthcare. More...

You ask what are these Community Health Centers? The Department of Health & Human Services at the future expense of Medicaid/Medicare for the elderly just funded 67 of them for an initial cost of $28.8 million...

From CNSNews -- (Emphasis Added)

Even if (when) the U.S. Supreme Court rules Obamacare to be Unconstitutional, the ruling will have a hard time defunding programs such as these. The elected elite in D.C.will just look for other ways to continue funding for these Obamacare-born Community Health Centers at the expense of the elderly in this country for the benefit of illegal immigrants.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced on Tuesday that it has awarded $28.8 million to 67 community health centers with funds from the Obamacare health reform law.

Of that $28.8 million, "approximately $8.5 million will be used by 25 New Access Point awardees to target services to migrant and seasonal farm workers," Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Spokeswoman Judy Andrews told CNSNews.com. HRSA is a part of HHS.

Andrews said that grant recipients will not check the immigration status of people seeking services.

“Health centers do not, as a matter of routine practice, ask about or collect data on citizenship or other matters not related to the treatment needs of the patients seeking health services at the center,” Andrews said.

Further, the grant recipients are required to serve "all residents" who walk through their doors.

“The Program’s authorizing statute does not affirmatively address immigration status,” said Andrews. “Rather, it simply states that health centers are required to provide primary health care to all residents of the health center's service area without regard for ability to pay.”

These Obamacare disbursements seem to contradict a claim President Obama famously made in a nationally televised speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 9, 2009.

“The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally,” Obama said then. More...

Reason #5,750: Why Ohio MUST Pass the Ohio Healthcare Freedom Amendment / Support Issue 3

The below rulings take the unconstitutional mandates in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act one step closer to the U.S. Supreme Court....

From the Liberty Counsel -- 

Richmond, VA – Today, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly known as “ObamaCare”) in the case of Liberty University v. Geithner and issued a separate opinion on the case of Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius. Liberty Counsel represents Liberty University and two private individuals, challenging both the individual and the employer mandates in ObamaCare.

The panel of judges for the case included one judge appointed by President Clinton, Judge Diana Gribbon Motz, and two judges appointed by President Obama, Judges Andre M. Davis and James A. Wynn Jr. Judge Motz wrote the opinion, in which Wynn concurred. Judge Davis wrote a dissenting opinion.

In the case of Liberty University, the divided court ruled that the mandate is a “tax” under the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA), and thus the court does not have jurisdiction to rule on the merits until the “tax” is paid and a refund sought by the taxpayer. Thus, the case could not be brought until the mandate becomes effective in 2014. Every court which has considered this question has found that the mandate is a “penalty,” not a tax, and the AIA does not apply. Even the federal government defendants argued that the AIA does not apply and that the statutory intent clearly indicated that the AIA was inapplicable.

In the Virginia case, the court ruled 3-0 that Virginia does not have standing to bring a challenge to the individual mandate, because that right is for individuals affected by the mandate.

In the case of Liberty University, the next and final stop in the battle over ObamaCare will be the United States Supreme Court. Liberty Counsel will file a petition with the High Court.

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, presented oral argument in early May. Staver said: “From the beginning everyone knew that the final frontier in the battle over ObamaCare would be the United States Supreme Court. The court’s ruling goes against every court in America that considered this case. Even the United States Government argued that the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply to this case. We look forward to the final round in this battle over ObamaCare at the United States Supreme Court.”

The main thrust of the mandates in the federal healthcare law allows the government to take an unconstitutional control over the freedom & liberty of the American public, more than they are about reforming or making healthcare more affordable. 

And this is just another one of many reasons why it is so important that in Ohio we take the needed steps to protect our God-given and Constitutionally protected rights, and that can be done by passing Issue 3, "The Ohio Healthcare Freedom Amendment" this November.

Help Defeat Obamacare in Ohio! Support Issue 3

HOW BADLY DO YOU WANT TO DEFEAT OBAMACARE IN OHIO AND SEND A BIG MESSAGE TO WASHINGTON THIS NOVEMBER?

Because of your help and support the Healthcare Freedom Amendment petition succeeded and is now Issue 3 on this November ballot!

Now it’s time to Get out the Vote and offer our support for Ohioans for Healthcare Freedom - go to http://ohioansforhealthcarefreedom.com - the primary organization running the campaign to get Issue 3 passed.

Take action now! We need volunteers to help in Cuyahoga County to participate in the following:

• Going door-to-door to get out the vote.
• Visiting a local phone bank to make telephone calls.
• Fundraising Efforts
• Visiting local businesses and organizations to distribute posters and brochures.

The Call Center Coordinator is Greg Fedak (greg@ohiohealthcarefreedom.com) and the Call Center for the Cuyahoga County area is located at;

Independence Call Center (Click for Map)

6393 Oak Tree Blvd, Suite 103

Independence, OH 44131