I wanted to blog in chronological order, but this is such an URGENT topic, I need to share it now.
June 5th, 2012 was the
Recall Election for the Wisconsin Senate District 21 Senator Van Wanggaard. The felon draft dodger John Lehman ran against him (
click here for it in his own words if you don't believe me). Racine Wisconsin is known for "voter irregularities" and the "recallers" had
felony charges brought against them EVEN during the signature collecting!
We know extra money was dumped into this district by the unions since the Van Wanggaard race was the most at risk. With mountains of evidence still coming in, I want to share what I've seen so far for those of you who have ANY "doubt" of FRAUD in this election and others. Yes, I said the "F" word. At the end of the summary, I have articles about MORE instances.
THIS ELECTION WAS STOLEN!
RACINE: REPORT VOTER FRAUD IN SENATE RECALL HERE: RacineVotes@gmail.com
Tipliine # is 262-35VOTER
These instances have been reported to the authorities and will be investigated for CRIMINAL charges.
RACINE POLL June 5th 2012 - Like the wall covering?
1.
Getting people to the polls
a.
Get out the vote effort: There were numerous “Get Out The Vote”
efforts going on in Racine, including a major effort run from the Labor Center
which utilized high school students, as well as at least one other significant
independent effort.
b.
School involvement: The student GOTV program, which previously
was run under the direct auspices of Horlick High School, this year was “run”
by "Youth Empowered for the Struggle," a youth arm of radical illegal
immigrant rights group "Voces de la Frontera." Y.E.S is organized in taxpayer-funded Racine
Unified public schools, with guidance from teachers who collect a paycheck from
Racine taxpayers. The largest YES group
is found in Racine Horlick High School, which is officially classified as a
failing school by the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction; Despite the
school's poor academic performance, they still allowed the day before final
exams to be a day of partisan political activism instead of academics, by
allowing students to participate in a democrat aligned Get Out The Vote effort,
which was focused on majority democrat wards in the city. This activity was organized on school
property, using school resources, and during school academic time. Students rode in vans covered in partisan
political slogans exhorting people to vote for Barret, Mitchell, and Lehman, and
dispatched from the Labor Center - hardly neutral political ground.
c.
Organizer intimidation: One of the adults associated with the Y.E.S.
effort, a teacher at Racine Horlick High School, was reportedly cited by Racine
Police for aggressively forcing his way into an apartment building and
screaming at residents to vote.
2.
Sowing chaos at the polls
a.
Union presence – electioneering: Occurred at
virtually every polling place in the city. Numerous polling places had a major
disruptive presence of union activists.
These people, in many cases clad in “blue fist” or other union attire
would converge on a polling location and attempt to influence the process there,
by insidiously infiltrating the polls.
These volunteers would enter the polling place, and begin distributing
drinks and food to voters, and directing traffic at the entrance, and would
progress quickly to discussing voting with voters, and acting in a quasi-poll workers. Many attempted to provide assistance to
voters.
As we have encountered this particular union tactic before, and seen the
kind of chaos they can create, we pushed back hard on anyone other than voters,
poll workers, and poll watchers in the polling place. We continuously had to ask the CEI to ask these third parties to leave the polling
place, or move beyond the 100
foot limit in the parking lot. At Festival Hall, two union goons wearing
embroidered “Stop the War on Workers” polo shirts adorned with blue fist
stickers attempted to start an altercation when I asked them to move 100 feet from the
door. I called the Racine Police
Department and made a complaint of illegal electioneering, and asked to have
the two men escorted from the entrance.
Leftist thugs also attempted to intimidate election observers. At one polling place, Festival Hall, an
election observer was threatened by a Racine leftist “community organizer” who
said he would “smash her head into the pavement.”
b.
Insufficient staffing: Many polling places . We received a number of complaints from poll
workers that they were unable to deal with turnout which in many cases exceeded
the high turnout 2008 presidential election.
We noted the processing of absentee ballots by regular poll workers at
each polling place, rather than by a roving absentee ballot team, which has been
used to help poll workers focus on election day voters in previous high profile
elections.
c.
Insufficient training: Poll workers received
less training than our poll watchers received.
In many cases they were unfamiliar with the law, particularly with regard
to same day voter registration. They had
to be continually reminded about the standards for documenting residency. However, the problems encountered went far
beyond this issue. Poll watchers found
Chief Election Inspectors who were mishandling ballots, who ignored challenges,
who ignored blatant electioneering,
d.
Lack of supervision: Chief Election Inspectors are supposed to
know better, but in multiple instances, we had to correct them on the conduct
of their job. One, for example, went off
on his own to input absentee ballots into an electronic voting machine, a
serious breach of election integrity.
Another allowed a poll worker to go off and canvass the neighborhood in
search of votes. Still others neglected
to expel loiterers and union organizers from the polling place, unless the city
clerk was called.
3.
Poll worker issues
a.
Voter registration
i.
Occupant:
The statute provides for the use
of utility bills as proof of residency, but they must obviously be addressed to
the voter. Racine water bills are
addressed to “Occupant” not a specific person.
Therefore, a Racine water bill cannot be used to prove residence. However, many poll workers at polling places
across the city were accepting this document, unless we specifically
objected. While this resulted in no
challenges and was generally dealt with informally, the repeated nature of this
issue in many cases left us with no confidence that poll workers would disallow
this document when we were not present.
ii.
Felon List:
Poll workers handling voter registration tables had to be continually
reminded to verify that voters did not appear on the ineligible felon lists.
iii.
Failure to uphold statutory requirements for
ID/residence: In many cases,
unauthorized documents were accepted as proof of residence. These included junk mail and other store
fliers, hospital bills, and as one poll worker insisted to me, “anything with
an account number.” In reality,
commercial mail, with the exception of utility bills, is not acceptable for
proving residence.
iv.
Out of district voters: The Chief Election Inspector at Humble Park,
a Mr. Mosby, was prepared to allow a Sturtevant resident to vote at Humble
Park. It was only after I pointed out
that it was an entirely different municipality that he told the voter he could
not vote there. He then asked me to move
so that I could not hear or see the documentation of other voters.
v.
Allowed
to vote 3 times: A voter at Martin
Luther King Community Center was allowed to vote three times. After being challenged on the third visit to
the polls, her ballot was flagged and the challenge logged, but the ballot was
put into the machine.
vi.
Challenge ignored : At the John Bryant Community Center, where I
observed an individual attempting to register to vote, using a handwritten
tear-out rent receipt, bearing the date 6/5/2012, to establish residency. I made a comment to the poll worker at the
registration desk that the document did serve as proof of residency. The Chief Election Inspector, Lillie Cameron,
heard my comment, walked over, and began to chastise me for talking to the poll
worker.
I told her that it was my intention to challenge the elector. She ignored my statement. I told her, again, emphatically, that I
challenged the elector. Ms. Cameron
again ignored my challenge.
The voter, having completed his registration, got in line to vote. I waited there at the table, and when he
reached the front of the line, I stated loudly and emphatically that I
challenged the elector. Ms. Cameron, and
the poll workers made no acknowledgment of my challenge. At that point, I began to yell “I am
challenging this elector! You cannot
give him a ballot!”
Ms.
Cameron, and the poll workers, completely ignored my challenge, and allowed the
elector to receive a ballot. They
blatantly and defiantly ignored my legal right of challenge, and allowed
someone to vote who had not demonstrated, according to the requirements of the
law, that they were a resident of that ward and district.
Voting Table:
vii.
Announcing the voter: In many cases, poll
workers had to be repeatedly reminded that voters were to state their name and
address upon approaching the table, and were not to be prompted by poll
workers. Prompting could facilitate
election fraud.
viii.
Poll workers at multiple poll locations did not
require those providing assistance, including in some cases poll workers, to
document that assistance was provided.
In some cases, poll workers routinely offered assistance rather than
wait for a request, even to those who seemingly did not require assistance.
b.
Absentee ballots
i.
Remaking of ballots: Because ballots were not available at the
start of in person absentee voting, voters were required to use ordinary paper
ballots, necessitating that the ballots be remade at the polling place prior to
processing. At Chavez Community Center,
and undetermined number of ballots, including those paper ballots, but possibly
others besides, were not remade.
Instead, they were entered directly into the electronic voting machine
by a sole poll worker, who was working without supervision or
corroboration. The direct entry of these
ballots into the electronic touchscreen voting machine does not provide for a
paper trail to ensure the will of the voter was reflected in the ballot cast.
ii.
Processing absentee ballots without supervision: At Chavez, MLK, Transit Center, and other
polling locations, poll watchers witnessed the mishandling of ballots,
including ballots being piled haphazardly on tables out of the control of poll
workers.
I will add stories below as I have time.
This one is PARTICULARLY DISTURBING from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal!
When you can’t rely on the time-tested strategies for winning elections, you can always fall back on bamboozling children into doing your grunt work. At least this is the charge being made by some students at Case High School in Racine.
And another MAJOR issue with this particular DISTRICT election.
