Tag Archives: Secretary of State

Sandra O’Brien Best Candidate for Secretary of State

If you read my previous post titled Right to Life Candidate Endorsements, you noticed at the end a favorable report of both John Michel’s and Sandra O’Brien’s pro-life candidacy. In this post, I want to elaborate on why O’Brien is the best candidate for Secretary of State.

In the past post, I wrote about a letter written by past state representative Diana Fessler to the Liberty Council in which Fessler exposes Jon Husted’s deceptive advertisements that touts his saving prayer in the House of Representatives. After further research, I found supporting evidence that the content of Fessler’s recent letter is true. For example, Ohio Christian Alliance reported the following on October 7, 2007:

On May 16th of this year, the Clerk’s Office at the Ohio Statehouse sent a memorandum to all House members in regard to the Guest Minister Prayer Policy after a protest was filed by minority leader Democrat Chris Redfern (80th District) and Democrat Robert Hagan (60th District) who objected to the prayer offered by Pastor Keith Hamblen, a guest of State Rep. Matt Huffman (R-4th District). Their objection to Pastor Hamblen’s prayer was that he had prayed in the name of Jesus and that he had referenced legislation that was to be voted on in the Ohio House that day.”

As Fessler letter indicates, the intent of the memo was to implement a policy that would censor the name of Jesus from all opening session prayers.

The Alliance report continued:

The memo from the Clerk’s office informed House members that a prayer policy that had been adopted in 2001 during Rep. Larry Householder’s Speakership, but never enforced, was now going to be enforced, at the Speaker’s urging. The policy called for ministers to submit a copy of their prepared remarks at least 72 hours prior to the session day for which they were scheduled to pray. “If it is determined that the prayer is of a denominational, sectarian, or proselytizing nature, we will ask for it to be changed to conform to the guidelines.”

The speaker of the House was none other than Republican Jon Husted.

The Alliance report rightly concluded “[i]t was clear that the action taken by the Clerk’s office was oppressive and discriminating toward Christian ministers.” However, the Clerk was merely the scribe of the memo not it source. Husted was the source who borrowed from a unenforced liberal policy.

As the Alliance Defense Fund press releases state, it was Diana Fessler who initiated legal action against Husted’s oppressive policy. It was Fessler, not Husted, who saved prayer in the House. Husted was the problem. (See also a letter by Fessler published by Citizen USA; To see information provided by the Alliance Defense Fund about this case, go to here and here)

If Husted is lying about this and about his Tea Party affiliation, what else is he lying about.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported on Ohio Tea Party officials’ denouncement of any affiliation with Husted. In fact, they claim a general hostility of entrenched GOP politicians like Husted to the Tea Party movement. “Chris Littleton, president of the Ohio Liberty Council, said Husted’s overtures to the Tea Party are all propaganda.” Husted’s record demonstrates his opposition to Tea Party values such as reduced government spending and debt, limited government, and the like. (To read the article, go here.)

Sandra O’Brien is an Ohio Tea Party favorite. Unlike Husted, she is also a real pro-life supporter. Husted has proven to be a pro-lifer for votes. Other wise he has supported pro-abortion candidates against pro-lifer. One of those candidates was O’Brien during the 2006 Republican primaries.

Sandra O’Brien is a genuine social and fiscal conservative. She deserves Republican and independent vote for Secretary of State, not Husted.

Don’t believe me? Good, check her website out for yourself.

Ohio Democrats Seeks Ohio Supreme Court’s Help to Violate Voter Law

Democrats in public office have a problem with abiding by our laws. When they cannot get laws passed (that is if they even try to get laws passed) by consent of the governed by means of their representatives, they seek the court’s assistance in making them by judicial fiat. This is what Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is doing ion behalf of Gov. Strickland and the Democratic Party.

The Plain Dealer reported that Brunner is attempting to make it possible for citizens to vote and the same time of their registration. Ohio law requires a 30-day period must pass before new registrants may vote. The reason is to give county and state officials time to verify registrant information like their driver’s license or identification card. She and her Democrat backers are seeking to discard the law through the courts.

“On Tuesday, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati sided with the Ohio Republican Party and ordered Brunner to set up a system that provides names of newly registered voters whose driver’s license numbers or Social Security numbers on voter registration forms don’t match records in other government databases.”

Why did the Court of Appeals agree with the Republicans? The Court found the current means of screening eligible voter insufficient to prevent voter fraud.

Ohio’s Democrat officials do not have a problem with the likelihood of voter fraud. They are more concerned about 200,000 registrants whose driver’s license and social security records do not match government’s records. I have had my social security information not match the government’s records. It took a few days to get the problem resolved. But, Democrats wants all of us to feel tolerant towards those people and let them vote anyway. We should not disenfranchise those who might vote for Obama. Who cares about the possibility that they maybe among those enlisted by ACORN to get out and vote.

Democrats do not care about voter disenfranchisement. If that were the case, they would have attempted to pass legislation that changed voter law. Instead, Democrats seek to employ their famous Roe v Wade tactic–making law by law breaking judges. Obama agrees with those judges that saw the right of women to kill their babies in public places like clinics and hospitals as a fundamental privacy right guaranteed by Constitutional law. The problem is the privacy rights stated in the Constitution has nothing to do with sex or killing the unborn. The same principle applies here. The laws exist to prevent fraud and injustice. The laws were not meant to be violated by public officials, political vote seekers, or anyone else. They exist because some people have in the past and will likely do so in the future, especially if they believe they can get away with it. Ohio Democrats continue their practice of creating tolerance and unconstitutional rights for breaking laws in order to achieve their goals. In this case, their effort is to give Obama a better chance of winning the election.

I can hear some Democrats saying something like this: Well, so do Republicans. Do you remember Blackwell? Yes. I also remember Republicans creating redistricting law that gave their candidates a more favorable chance at winning elections in some districts. They did not blatantly seek to break the law by using the courts. They simply remade legitimate law. They actually did something Democrats often do not: They honored the rule of law, and representative of Ohioans not courts makes our laws.

Source: The Plain Dealer October 16, 2008