As many of you are aware, I was deplatformed from several social media sites and lost my online Christian ministry which I invested more than 12 years into because I exposed real election fraud in the days following the 2020 election. No one has more interest in this than I do, and I will continue to state unequivocally that Joe Biden stole the presidency, and that the Democratic Party’s operatives stole the US Senate majority, and probably even the majority in the US House of Representatives. No one will ever convince me otherwise, as I watched it happen in real time, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar. I also believe that the truth will win out, and that the American people will seek justice for this treasonous conspiracy, insurrection and coup d’état under color of law. But this process of bringing light to the darkness must be done with the demonstration of reasonable proofs, by people who know what they’re doing—not by actions which only serve to make the whole process of auditing the election appear to have a dubious character.
That said, my opponent Joe Blystone is campaigning on his belief that elections in Ohio are unsecure, and that our secretary of state Frank LaRose is complicit in some sort of election fraud cover-up. For example, he states on his official blog, “Make no mistake election fraud in Ohio is a problem! #ElectionFraud” as well as, with regard to a mistake which was corrected, “This is yet another example of the fraud permeating our voting system! We have a big problem here in Ohio,” and other such unambiguous statements, often in public. He has even been selling tickets to a Fourth of July campaign event offering a chance for his followers to meet Doug Frank, a Cincinnati-based chemist who has publicly alleged that Ohio was subject to voter fraud in the 2020 general election based on his statistical analysis. Dr. Frank’s notoriety propelled him into a minor celebrity status, which he used to speak at the Trump rally in Wellington where he (Dr. Frank) publicly lent his support to Blystone’s bid for Governor of Ohio. Blystone is all too eager to capitalize on this notoriety, and continues drawing attention not only from the voting public, but from advocates for forensic audits of the 2020 election outside our state, including Mike Lindell.
However, the facts which Dr. Frank alleges have been refuted by the Ohio Secretary of State’s Office, and he has not been able to provide any substantiation to his claims. I’m the kind of guy who just assumes that every government commission to investigate anything the government does is necessarily a cover-up. Yet even I found the state’s rebuttal to be logical and satisfactory in this case. And it bears mentioning that Dr. Frank and the Blystone camp have no response other than to mindlessly repeat the same false allegations against LaRose et al.
I, too, had serious concerns about the integrity of the 2020 election in Ohio and was not willing to give anyone a free pass. So I wrote to the Secretary of State’s Office the night of June 28, 2021 to ask whether their reply to Blystone’s and Frank’s allegations meant that absolutely no voter fraud took place, and to account for the 15% mail-in ballot voting advantage for Biden, as published by the New York Times and circulated around the Internet in meme form. I was intent on catching LaRose or some surrogate of his in a trap of either having to admit that voter fraud might have taken place, or of lying.
In the morning, I received a phone call from Dave Ward, Director of Constituent Affairs at the Secretary of State’s Office. The call lasted 35 minutes and he gave me express permission to use his name and relate the details of our conversation to the public. I could tell by the fast pace and confidence with which he spoke that he was really on top of things. In fact, he was so professional, dispassionate, and polite, so helpful and so proactive in offering up useful information that I was convinced of his sincerity when he said, “Transparency is the best response to those who don’t trust the process.” In the interest of transparency, he practically insisted that I direct people with concerns about Ohio’s election security to the 400-page election manual which is published here.
Mr. Ward gave me a summary dismissal of Dr. Frank’s assertions. In short, Frank admitted to having used data retrieved from the Secretary of State’s web site in February for an election which took place in November. During this interval the state performed its regular voter list maintenance (“voter purge”) in accordance with federal law. Some 100,000 voters who hadn’t voted in 6 years were removed. This, in my opinion (and I had no trouble with Statistics in college, and aced each of my Calculus finals), is consistent with the US Census data, whereby Ohio lost a congressional district, and isn’t suggestive of any nefarious activity—certainly not enough for a so-called scientist such as Dr. Frank to stake his professional reputation on it the way he seemingly has.
With regard to my question, Mr. Ward asked me for clarification and gave me plenty of opportunity to explain my concerns before answering them directly. He said that election fraud happens in every election and did happen in 2020, but that the election was secure. He admits that Ohio isn’t perfect, but insists that the Secretary of State’s Office is willing to hear any idea for improving election integrity, which is the prerogative of the state’s legislature. He declared that they aren’t hiding anything and that Ohio has perhaps the most transparent Secretary of State’s Office in the country. As a testament to his affirmation, he informed me that the State of Pennsylvania’s legislature inquired with their office with regard to its own problems, based on the fact that Ohio had set the standard for election security, and pointed me to media reports of the event. (Pennsylvania has since similarly sent a delegation to Arizona to discuss how it might replicate the forensic audit in that state.) He convinced me that a forensic audit of the election in Ohio would be frivolous, based on the fact that the testing of machines is done in public, and that anyone can participate, which means there is already a forensic audit by default. And since others had expressed their concerns about Dominion/Smartmatic machines, he explained to me that this is a matter for the counties’ boards of elections. So even if there was a machine that was connected to the Internet or whatever Dr. Frank wants to allege, it certainly wasn’t LaRose’s fault. Either way, the burden of proof is on whoever wants to allege it, and I did not get the impression that LaRose’s office would try to bury that information if it ever came to light. And I have personally seen elections workers complain about Frank’s allegations, as they imply their own collusion with the unproven Democrats’ scheme, but after exhaustive searching in November, turned up no affidavits from poll workers alleging any wrongdoing, such as were ubiquitous in other states.
Mr. Ward wouldn’t say with absolute certainty that it was impossible that ballots might have been added at the counting stations illegally, but reassured me that it didn’t happen because of the numerous protocols which were in place. He explained that while other states don’t typically publish the voter rolls, the numbers of mail-in ballot applications received and returned is a matter of public record, and that the numbers of ballots received coincides with the applications requested and sent out, which anyone can confirm. I asked if it might have been possible that mail-in ballots had been requested fraudulently, and he carefully described the process as being bipartisan and secure, with poll workers vetting each envelope and comparing the signatures with those on file. Again, in the absence of counterfactual evidence, it stands to reason that this process was indeed secure. In pursuit of such counterfactual evidence, I asked him whether they had received any other complaints from poll watchers other than the few which have been prosecuted, and he explained that the county boards of elections decide whether or not to refer people suspected of voter fraud for prosecution and that they don’t even have to share that information with the Secretary of State’s Office. His explanation for the 15% mail-in ballot advantage to Biden is that the GOP told voters to show up in person, whereas the Democrats and third parties pushed for vote by mail. I can hardly argue with this logic, as my wife and I voted in person for this very reason.
Mr. Ward really couldn’t have been more helpful. He recommends that if anyone doesn’t trust the process, they “become” the process by getting involved in it. He encourages us to inspect the voter roles if there are any concerns, and to call his office or our elections boards if we have any questions about the process. That’s what I did, and I am more than satisfied with the result. And Joe Blystone spent five times as much time with them as I did, so I can only wonder what his problem is, as he is still capitalizing on the fear and uncertainty regarding our secretary of state’s handling of the election, a cause which may have substance in some other states, but not in ours. I’m inclined to agree with the speculations I’ve heard, that he’s setting up an argument for his epic defeat in the 2022 primary, much like Opal Covey does every time she loses the Toledo mayoral election. We in the Toledo area tolerate her shenanigans because they’re as harmless as they are unhinged. But Blystone wants LaRose out of office, thereby opening us up to the possibility that someone less worthy of it could take it from him, which is becoming a real rather than imagined threat to the integrity of our state’s elections as Blystone’s campaign gains traction.
Although I am still skeptical that Biden’s mail-in voting advantage was that enormous, I can’t argue from any point of evidence that the Secretary of State’s Office is not absolved of the burden of proof. I know that COVID-19 was a means to hijack our national elections, that the “blue wave” and “red mirage” narrative pushed by the corporate media was part of the Democrats’ overall strategy, and that it worked, at the very least, in Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in conjunction with illegal ballot dumps, but the end result of any attempts they might have made in Ohio is that the Secretary of State’s Office thwarted them, and the State of Ohio cast its electoral votes for Trump according to the will of the voters, while the others did not.
What this means is that Blystone’s attacks on LaRose are unfounded and defamatory. And I cannot stand to see a fellow veteran and patriot come under fire for the excellent job he has done protecting our elections systems, especially at the critical time that the Democrats levied a full-scale assault on our democracy. I already knew LaRose ran a tight ship when I applied for my Ohio minister’s license in 2019 and received it within a few days. For the work he has done since then, he ought to be lauded a hero and a champion of the people, rather than being dragged into the street, as Blystone demands.
This incident has caused me to vet LaRose and the work he has done as Secretary of a state which has been ranked #12 in corruption by Fortune, and #1 by Newsweek’s David Graham. It’s clear that Blystone isn’t really interested in cleaning out this corruption, as I am, but merely in advancing his own election prospects by tapping into the anger and frustration that so many of us have over the subversion of our elections. And I can say with confidence that until it is proven otherwise, LaRose and his office have done a fine job of protecting Ohioans’ rights to be heard through the electoral process.