Obama Supporter Involved in Online Comment Controversy

A Barack Obama supporter in North Carolina admitted to me this afternoon that he wrote a now-controversial Facebook comment in which he stated that he had already voted four times and was planning to vote a fifth.  During the same conversation, however, he steadfastly denied having violated election laws or having plans to do so.

I became aware of the comment authored by someone named Jim Turner after a conservative blog with which I am not very familiar published a post featuring a captured image of the comment, the text of which appears below (minus names of the actual towns he named):

I have voted once in (name of town #1), once in (name of town #2), twice in  (name of town #3) and will vote in my precinct in (name of town #4), I will do whatever it takes to save our country from the world envisioned by Mitt and his fear mongering followers.  I do not want my granddaughter to have to re-fight the battles won by women 40 years ago or to make less than my grandson for performing the same work he does.  This election is not about taxing the wealthy.  It is about the American spirit and caring for our fellow man.  Let’s continue to move forward, not slip in the dark past.

Above the image was a link to the Facebook page of the Jim Turner alleged to be behind the comments.  When I visited that page, I found no evidence of the controversial  comment but did read a comment containing words that seemed to reference the controversial comment.  The words that appeared in the second comment are shown below:

“I posted a comment to Jami’s page earlier today and it now lives in cybersomewhere.  I can’t seem to get with the whole facebook thing.  I made bold comments on the future of my grandchildren under a Romney presidency and now it is gone.  I think my comments were deleted as part of a conspiracy inspired by some who see our national glass as half empty.”

When I looked for someone named Jami on the aforementioned Facebook page of Jim Turner in North Carolina, I found a “friend” by that name but nothing in the form of any recent, publicly-visible posts or comments by anyone named Jim Turner.

Still curious to learn more about this particular Jim Turner, I searched for him by name and city, careful to confirm that any address shown for him was also the address listed for his wife, a woman he describes in a section of his Facebook page as his “high school sweetheart.”  I was amazed at what turned up.

By clicking on one of the search results, I was lead to an Obama campaign website where I found this statement:  “Join us at the home of Jim and (wife’s name) Turner to make calls that will help re-elect President Obama.”  Below the statement was contact information(i.e., home address and phone number) for Jim Turner and his wife.

After I confirmed that the phone number shown matched one I had found on an online phone directory, I used it to try reaching Jim Turner.  After several tries today, I finally reached him at approximately 2:45 p.m. Central.

As stated above, the Jim Turner with whom I spoke admitted to writing the controversial comment but vehemently denied having actually voted more than once or having plans to do so.  When I changed the subject and asked if he and his wife have hosted any phone bank sessions for the Obama re-election effort, he politely ended our two-minute phone conversation without answering that question.

Editor’s Note:  Turner told me he has received death threats as a result of this controversy.  Because I do not condone death threats or harassment of any sort, I removed several links and other information from this piece so as to make it more difficult for anyone wishing to do harm to Turner to reach such an objective.

“BY HOOK OR BY CROOK” UPDATE 11/03/2012 at 7:36 p.m. Central:  NAACP operatives invade polling station in Houston.

“BY HOOK OR BY CROOK UPDATE 11/04/2012 at 8:16 a.m. Central:  538′s Nate Silver predicts Obama win.

UPDATE 11/04/2012 at 1:03 p.m. Central:  It appears that more than one news outlet has let the “genie” out of the bottle; therefore, I’m offering links to their stories here, here and here.  Note, my story is the only one that mentions the phone bank angle.

UPDATE 11/04/2012 at 9:17 p.m. Central:  So many conservative sites are sharing news about Jim Turner, but I remain the only one to share news about him hosting phone bank sessions for the Obama re-election campaign.  Now, I’ve added the photo above with Turner’s address and phone blocked out.

UPDATE:  Turner was cleared of wrongdoing, according to this report.

Bob McCarty is the author of “Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice,” a nonfiction book that’s available in paperback and ebook via most online booksellers, including Amazon.com. His second book, “The CLAPPER MEMO,” is set for release this fall.

U.N. Election Monitors Coming to Polling Stations Nationwide

News that officials in four states — Texas, Alabama, Iowa and Ohio — have taken steps to ban United Nations officials from monitoring elections in their states begs the question, “Why haven’t officials in the remaining 46 states done the same?”

United Nations Election Observer Deployment 2012

As things stand today, people in four U.S. cities — Oklahoma City, Okla., Jefferson City, Mo., Indianapolis and Lansing, Mich. — will see their election day activities monitored by Baurzhan Yermegiyayev and Bolat Bersebayev of Kazakhstan, a former Soviet Central Asian state that has had serious problems with its own elections.

In a Jan. 16 article published under the headline, Observers criticize Kazakhstan election, The Washington Post reported problems during that former Soviet Central Asian republic’s election:

But observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe said the government prevented some parties and candidates from contesting the election; the media operated under self-censorship; and “necessary conditions for the conduct of genuinely pluralistic elections, which are a prerequisite for functioning democratic institutions, were not provided for by the authorities.”

Similarly, Americans in Boston and Concord, N.H., will see their elections monitored by Elchin Musayev of Azerbaijan, another former Soviet satellite where, as recently as last week, new legislation has been proposed to prohibit public protests ahead of 2013 elections.

Take a look at the list of election-monitoring plans above and, if you see a city in your state set to be monitored by someone from the U.N., contact your elected officials and demand those efforts be stopped.

Bob McCarty is the author of “Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice,” a nonfiction book that’s available in paperback and ebook via most online booksellers, including Amazon.com. His second book, “The CLAPPER MEMO,” is set for release this fall.

Does Barack Obama Deserve Best Actor Award?

Have you seen the movie, “Resident Evil: Re-Election,” starring Barack Obama?  Rumor has it the man playing the “starring” role in this film is gonna be nominated for an Academy Award© as best actor.  Now, one question surfaces:  Does he deserve it?  I’d say he does.

Not since the days of Jimmy Carter have Americans seen someone do such a poor job of pretending to know what he’s doing as president of the United States.

Vote wisely Nov. 6!

Bob McCarty is the author of “Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice,” a nonfiction book that’s available in paperback and ebook via most online booksellers, including Amazon.com.  His second nonfiction book, “The CLAPPER MEMO,” is set for release this fall.

Should We Save the National Popular Vote Enthusiast Before He Shoots Himself in the Foot?

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Blogger

On Monday, Aug. 8, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that would award all of California’s 55 electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote in presidential elections.  The bill was promoted by the group, National Popular Vote, Inc., established following the 2000 General Election when Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency to George W. Bush based on a two-vote plurality in the Electoral College.

Click graphic to read “Jindal & Rubio: Two Wrongs Don’t Make A Right.”

Liberals and Democrats are determined not to ever let that happen again.  However, knowing Democrats as we do, we can safely predict that, if a Republican candidate were ever to win the national popular vote, while losing the Electoral College vote to a Democratic opponent, we would be overrun with liberals and Democrats waving the Electoral College in our faces.  So let’s not be too quick to cloak them with any degree of fairness or sincerity.  They were unable  to steal a close election in Florida and they’re still hopping mad about it… eleven years later.

In November 2000, Gore and Sen. Joe Lieberman (R-Conn.) won the nationwide popular vote by 50,999,897 to 50,456,002 over George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.  A switch of 271,948 votes, just over one-fourth of one percent, would have given Bush and Cheney a slim popular vote victory, along with a 271 to 266 vote victory where it really counts, in the Electoral College.

California now joins Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont and Washington, plus the District of Columbia, in adopting the rule, bringing 132 of the needed 270 electoral votes under the popular vote rule.  If and when states representing 270 electoral votes have joined the popular vote movement, then and only then will those states be able to control a simple majority in the Electoral College.

But is it possible that the eight blue states that have now been suckered into the National Popular Vote movement are merely shooting themselves in the foot?  Let’s play a little “what if,” using the results from the 2000 election.

What if the U.S. Supreme Court had failed to intervene in Florida and the Democrat-dominated Florida Supreme Court had been allowed to proceed with recounts in only the four most heavily Democratic counties in the state, opening the process to massive fraud and throwing Florida’s 25 electoral votes to the Democrats?  The final Electoral College vote would have been 292 to 246 in favor of Gore-Lieberman.

But what if, at the same time, Bush and Cheney had been able to win 271,948 more votes out of the 101,455,900 votes cast… just one out of every 373 votes… to win a narrow victory in the national popular vote?  What would have been the impact on the outcome of election?  With the eight blue states and the District of Columbia throwing their 132 electoral votes to the winners of the national popular vote, i.e. Bush-Cheney, instead of a 292 to 246 victory for Gore-Lieberman in the Electoral College, the final electoral count would have been 378 to 160, Bush-Cheney over Gore-Lieberman… an Electoral College victory of landslide proportions.  It is not the Electoral College that creates unfairness in our electoral system; there are far worse problems that demand our attention.

In his introduction to the book, “Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote,” the bible of the national popular vote movement, former Republican congressman and presidential candidate John B. Anderson had this to say: “I believe the occupant of the nation’s highest office should be determined by a nationwide popular vote by legally registered voters.  The current system… can trump the national popular vote.  The system is not based on majority rule, and it fails to provide political equality.”

What Anderson is suggesting would horrify baseball fans.  What he is suggesting, in baseball terms, is that if the New York Yankees and the Philadelphia Phillies were to meet in a seven-game World Series, where the Yankees won three games, 5-3, 6-1, and 3-2, while the Phillies won four, 5-2, 6-5, 5-4, and  2-1, the Yankees should be declared World Champions because they scored 26 runs in the seven games while the Phillies scored only 24.  It doesn’t work that way in major league baseball and it certainly doesn’t work that way when 50 sovereign states vote to select a national leader.  The concept of selecting a president and vice president by nationwide popular vote would clearly violate the intent of the Framers and may very well be unconstitutional.

However, most Americans will agree with Anderson that the occupant of the nation’s highest office should be determined by legally registered voters.  For many years, but particularly in the years since the advent of “motor voter,” “postcard,” “roving registrar,” and “same day” voter registration, Democrats have used those systems to register hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of deceased people, illegal aliens, household pets, cartoon characters, and other ineligible entities as registered voters.

Aside from their insistence that the members of the House of Representatives be elected by direct vote of the people; that the members of the Senate be elected by the political leadership of the various states, i.e. the state legislatures (later overturned by the 17th Amendment); and that the president and vice president be elected by the states, the primary concern of the Founders was that a foreign power might one day attempt to achieve through corruption and political intrigue, that which they could not achieve on the battlefield.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper No. 68, “These most deadly adversaries of republican government (cabal, intrigue, etc.)” might come from many quarters, “but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.  How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”

With that thought in mind, is it even remotely possible that, just five years and eleven months after the British surrendered at Yorktown, the Founders would have presented to the states for ratification a Constitution that would allow an individual with divided loyalties – i.e. a person with dual U.S.-British citizenship, dual US-French citizenship, etc. – to serve as president or vice president of the United States?  To think they would have done so requires a willing suspension of reason.  Instead, the Founding Fathers insisted that “No Person except a natural born Citizen” should ever serve as president or vice president of the United States.

Our experience of recent years tells us that the Electoral College and the potential for electing a president and vice president with less than a majority of the popular vote is the least of our worries.  What should concern us all is the fact that the Electoral College has on occasion failed to perform as the Founders intended and is ripe for reform.

On two occasions… the election of Republican Chester A. Arthur as vice president in 1880, and the election of Democrat Barack Obama as president in 2008… the parties have nominated, the Electoral College has elected, and the Congress has certified, individuals who failed to meet the clear standard of a “natural born citizen.”  With a current population of more than 320 million, there is no reason why the American people should be forced to consider men and women of questionable qualifications for president and vice president.

Nor was the idea of a foreign power purchasing the cooperation or the acquiescence of a U.S. president a major concern – until 1996 and 2008.  In 1996, Bill Clinton and Al Gore received hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of dollars from agents of the Peoples Republic of China… illegal contributions that were not disclosed until well after they were reelected.  Would Democratic electors… particularly war veterans… have withheld their electoral votes had they known beforehand that Clinton and Gore had such a cozy relationship with a foreign power?  It makes for very interesting speculation.  However, in 2008, when Barack Obama and Joe Biden accepted more than 66,383 contributions from foreign sources, Democratic electors were made aware of the wrongdoing before the Electoral College voted, but chose to ignore the evidence.

The members of the Electoral College have a solemn duty to elect the best qualified candidates.  In addition to establishing a clear definition of the term “natural born,” the Congress should also impose penalties on members of the Electoral College who violate their oath of office by failing to exercise due diligence in the performance of their duties.   And if Mr. Anderson is serious about having elections determined only by legally registered voters, he should demand that the Congress and the state legislatures impose heavy fines and mandatory prison sentences on those who would vote illegally, and on those who would abet and/or facilitate illegal voting.

Anderson tells us that, “The Framers distrusted democracy.”  Yes they did, and for good reason.  Their objective was to give us a republic, not a democracy, because they knew that the history of pure democracies was not a good one.  Yet, in spite of that, those in the national popular vote movement would have us believe that pure democracy in the selection of a president and vice president is somehow a good idea.

The national popular vote is an idea that appeals primarily to liberals, which would lead one to believe that it would most likely be the blue states that would adopt the popular vote rule.  If they will do a bit of simple arithmetic they might think twice about joining that movement.  With the long term outlook favoring Republican presidential candidates, they may be setting themselves up to provide Republicans with some massive presidential landslides.

Paul R. Hollrah

Hollrah is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a contributing editor for Family Security Matters and a number of online publications.  He resides in northeast Oklahoma.

If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BloggingMachine. Thanks in advance for your support!

‘Recall Day’ Proposed as New Game Show

Thanks to a link on the Drudge Report today, I came across an Entertainment Weekly article about the cable channel, SPIKE, ordering “Repo Games,” a car repo game show, from the producers of the slimy-yet-popular show, “Jersey Shore.” While I’m certain the “Obama Economy” will produce plenty of contestants for the show, I’d rather see a different show take to the airwaves.

The show I’d like to see — perhaps on Fox News Channel? — would be called, “Recall Day,” and would feature members of a live studio audience quizzing currently-elected members of Congress (a.k.a., “contestants”).

Each episode of “Recall Day” would involve audience members — all of whom must be registered voters — quizzing members of Congress about their respective performances in terms of fulfilling campaign pledges, sticking to principles and serving as a genuine “representative of the people.”

At the end of each show, audience members and viewers — via phone and text message — would cast votes on whether or not to allow the elected officials to remain in office.  Too many “no” votes would result in an elected official being recalled and new elections being held.

I know, there are a lot of sticky wickets in this idea; still, I think “Recall Day” is worth consideration.  After all, millions of Americans watch shows like “Jersey Shore,” “American Idol” and “The Dr. Phil Show.”

FYI: If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Thanks in advance for your support!

Should We Expect Election Fraud in St. Louis? (Update)

Two pieces of election news failed the “smell test” when they surfaced in Missouri today, and both tie directly to the Carnahan family, the liberal Democrat clan that spawned two 2010 candidates — Russ Carnahan, incumbent in the 3rd Congressional District, and his sister, Robin Carnahan, a candidate for the U.S. Senate.

The first item surfaced this afternoon when a caller to “The Dana Show” told host Dana Loesch that the St. Louis (Mo.) City Board of Elections was, on election day, using Special Services, a security firm said described as having a long-standing relationship with the same Carnahan family.

As shown on page 270 of a recent FEC report, Congressman Carnahan paid Special Services $1,400 to do security work for his campaign as recently as Aug. 26, 2010.  Only 66 days later, according to a news release issued by Russ Carnahan’s Republican challenger Ed Martin, the firm was hired by Eileen McCann, Democrat chairwoman of the St. Louis City Election Board, to do work on election day.

While this news alone cannot stand as an indictment of the election board chairwoman, the candidate or the security firm, it should prompt a thorough investigation.

The second item came into focus after Missouri Watchdog reported that the Show-Me State’s electronic database designed to track voter information was unavailable for poll workers to access online to verify voter registration on election day.

No one should find it strange that the high-tech approach to elections failed for a time on election day.  After all, the person charged with ensuring elections in Missouri are conducted in a smooth and fair manner is Robin Carnahan, the aforementioned senate candidate now serving as Missouri’s Secretary of State:

  • She was several points behind Roy Blunt, her Republican opponent, in almost every poll.  But I digress.

Again, a dysfunctional electronic database shouldn’t serve as an indictment of Robin Carnahan, but it too demands a bipartisan investigation.

At the end of the day, the “net-net” of today’s news is this:  No one in Missouri should be surprised to hear post-election news reports about shenanigans taking place during the election process in St. Louis and across the state.  It seems to be a way of life with the Carnahans.

UPDATE 11/3/10 at 10:30 a.m. Central: A Gateway Pundit report this morning features the text of an e-mail sent out by Ed Martin which backs up what I noted on my Facebook wall at around 11:30 p.m. Central Tuesday (i.e., “We also saw a mathematically implausible midnight surge of thousands of votes from a handful of precincts”).  See graphic below.

UPDATE 11/10/10 at 10:25 a.m. Central: Perhaps, I should have asked the question, “Should we expect election problems in St. Louis?”  Had I asked that, the answer would have been “yes” according to a new article published at Missouri Watchdog.  See Poll worker describes Election Day problems.

UPDATE 11/20/10 AT 9:21 a.m. Central: In an article today, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported, among other things, the following:

But e-mails obtained by the Post-Dispatch show that the chairman of the Election Board, a Democrat, hired the firm despite the objections of other board members, including a warning about the perception of a conflict of interest.

Guide Answers Questions for Missouri Voters

It’s easy to get confused when it comes to casting votes on the non-candidate issues that appear on your voting ballot.  For Missourians who haven’t taken time to research the non-candidate issues on the ballot, I offer several summaries and recommendations below:


A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to require that assessors in charter counties be elected officers.  This proposal will affect St. Louis County and any county that adopts a charter form of government.  The exception is for a county that has between 600,001-699,999 residents, which currently is only Jackson County.  Let’s elect our assessors rather than have them appointed.  It only makes sense!  I say, “VOTE YES!”


While a “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to exempt from property taxes all real property used as a homestead by any Missouri citizen who is a former prisoner of war with a total service-connected disability, I say, “VOTE NO!”

As a conservative and a veteran, I favor lower taxes and respect my fellow veterans such as Brig. Gen. Ralph T. Browning.  He served as my boss in the Air Force almost 20 years after he was released from prison after serving nearly seven years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam.  I do not, however, favor tax relief for special classes of people as I’m fearful that a “slippery slope” will develop and lead to many more exceptions.  How about doing away with income and property taxes completely and replacing them with a flat tax or fair tax.  See Video Compares Flat, National Sales Tax for more info.


A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to prevent the state, counties, and other political subdivisions from imposing any new tax, including a sales tax, on the sale or transfer of homes or any other real estate. In defense of home and property ownership, vote “YES” to prohibit sales taxes on your home!  In short, voting “YES” prevents you from being double-taxed on the sale of your home.  I say, “VOTE YES!”


A trend in local government tax schemes is to find new sources of taxation.  St. Louis City and Kansas City aggressively tax local payrolls through their municipal income tax.  (The public school lobby has been seeking authority to do the same at the local school district level.)  While this increases revenues for the local governing authorities, it also creates its own negative outcomes.  Meanwhile other local governments covet a local income tax too.  If you think you’re taxed enough already, “VOTE YES!” I will.


When it comes to Proposition B, I say, “That Dog Don’t Hunt!” Proponents of the measure are spreading misinformation about this measure that is backed by radical animal rights organization and, if passed, will lead to more imported puppies.  Missouri already has tough regulations on the books, and we don’t need more.

For more details on this subject, read five posts I’ve written about Proposition B.

For general information about all of the measures appearing on the Missouri ballot Tuesday, click here.

FYI: Though I’ll be forced to hold my nose when it comes to voting for some candidates who appear on my ballot, I plan to vote a straight Republican ticket and recommend you do as well.