Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Election 2008, Election 2010, Election 2012, Election 2014, Foreign Policy, Law, Politics, Regulation, Taxes, The United States | Tags: Election Day Is Special, Vote Fraud Is Real, Why Do They Cheat?
A video has emerged from Illinois (why am I not surprised?) that a “calibration error” that just happens to cause voting machines to switch votes from Republican to Democrat. You punch the box to vote for the Republican candidate, and it registers that you voted for the Democrat candidate. The video purportedly shows voting machines in the Moline, Illinois public library registering votes for the Democrat candidate when the Republican is the intended choice.
That makes it nice and simple, doesn’t it? Doesn’t even have to be somebody there miscounting ballots, or hiding some — just program it into the voting machine, just enough to win the election, but not enough that anybody would immediately call FRAUD!
Same thing is happening in Maryland. “Calibration Errors” that cannot be replicated. People with fat fingers, or long nails perhaps? I get suspicious of anything that involves changing the vocabulary from a simple and straightforward “vote fraud” to a broad generalization like “calibration error.” I have never read anywhere of a ‘calibration error’ changing a Democrat vote to a Republican vote, but perhaps that’s just a coincidence?
We’ve had a lot of vote fraud here in Washington State, and the people have not forgotten. Governor Christine Gregoire was not elected until they recounted the votes enough times to find just enough to give her a small margin of victory. She had lost in the first count, and in the second, but by the third count they found some votes in a box in the back room or left in somebody’s car — something like that.
The pro-amnesty Hispanic-activist organization the National Council of La Raza has been promoting a Washington Post article explaining in which states “undocumented” people can vote without having to present photo ID. Most states request some form of ID but don’t require it. Another 20 states don’t require identification. The Washington Post has a handy graph outlining the requirements.
Democrats scoff that vote fraud is merely a figment of Republican imagination, but serious survey data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study produced estimates of 1,408.000 non-citizens voting in 2008, and 484,000 voting in the off-year election in 2010. That’s enough to decide an election.
Here in Washington State, we have switched to Mail In Ballots, which are much more conducive to vote fraud than plain old voting at your local school or retirement home with a hand marked ballot. Those people saw to it that you showed ID, signed in, and there were election judges there. Now we just do it any old-time prior to the election, fill them out at home, and hope they get counted. I liked the formal trip to the polls, greeting poll workers that I hadn’t seen since the last election — it was inconvenient, but a small price to pay for executing my civic duty. It felt good.
Do you remember in 2012, there was a thing about military ballots. Republicans were trying to make sure that soldiers got their ballots and that their votes were recorded. Then there was something in the news about the plane going down in Afghanistan, and too late to get more ballots or something, but there was never any report of the crash, or about survivors, or a death toll. Curious.
Discover the Networks has a section intended to refute, with hard evidence, the foregoing assertions of the Left. The section consists of excerpts from hundreds of news stories reporting on fraud and improprieties in the voter-registration process as well as at the ballot box. Do take the time to visit and see for yourself the extent of the fraud that Democrats claim does not exist. If you are really curious, enter the “Secretary of State Project” in the search function there. Now supposedly discontinued, there could have been no other purpose for the project than to elect Democrats to control the State office that oversees elections.
Obama came from the Chicago political machine. It’s the only kind of politics he knows.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Election 2008, Election 2010, Election 2012, Election 2014, Law, Politics, The United States | Tags: Are Clean Elections Possible?, How Much is Too Much?, Many Ways of Vote Fraud
I got a little curious today, about the prospects for vote fraud in the upcoming election, so I did what we all do when we’re curious, I went to Google for a cursory search. What I found was fascinating. The websites I consider reliably Left, reliably said— nothing to see here, move right along. No such thing, proclaimed large numbers. Republican claims of vote fraud are untrue. Real but rare, they insist. Oh come on. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Chicago? In two elections, Barack Obama fortuitously managed to get court-sealed divorce records of his opponent opened just before the election. My next door neighbors for many years were from Illinois, and they had some remarkable stories. We had some real vote fraud here in Washington State. Military ballots gone missing. Documented. The arguments will continue — there’s a great deal at stake, and Democrats will continue to insist it is all figments of the Republican imagination.
The Washington Post asked a few days ago “Could non-citizens decide the November election?” They went to the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) for answers.
How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.
Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.
Estimated Voter Turnout by Non-Citizens 2008 2010 Self reported and/or verified 38 (11.3%) 13 (3.5%) Self reported and verified 5 (1.5%) N.A. Adjusted estimate 21 (6.4%) 8 (2.2%)
The study did not indicate any advantage coming from Photo ID, because illegals were able to vote anyway. The researchers say that perhaps the United States should move to legalize some electoral participation by non-citizens as many other countries do—though they offer no justification for so doing. Election rules in Kansas and Arizona are set to bar thousands of people in coming weeks from casting ballots in state primaries even as the federal government allows some of them to vote in congressional races. The comments in the article are about what would be expected:
“There is a very real problem with aliens being registered to vote,” said Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who said about a dozen states are likely to pass such measures in coming years.
Democrats have countered that there are few examples of fraud at the polls and that such steps suppress the vote of such groups as minorities and women.
So there you go. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Economy, Election 2010, Politics, Progressivism, Taxes | Tags: Economics, Obamacare, Unemployment
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Economy, Election 2010, Health Care, Taxes | Tags: Sandra Fluke, The Medicare Drug Plan, The War on Women
When Sandra Fluke appeared at a hastily arranged pretend congressional testimony event to demand that taxpayers pay for birth control for all deserving young women, many were offended at the idea that all young women were going to have premarital sex as a matter of course and we were supposed to pay for it. Many were a little embarrassed, and glad that it wasn’t their daughter making such a public claim. Attention quickly turned to Rush Limbaugh who suggested that she was a slut, and then to shrill claims that there was a “War on Women.”
This falls under the “full of storm and fury signifying nothing” category. Democrats, who consider Feminists as one of their major support groups, always overestimate feminist numbers. Nevertheless, they are apparently planning to organize their entire convention around the “War on Women.” Barbara Boxer, always ready to fight in that war, is delighted.
Ms. Fluke’s impassioned plea for free contraceptives so all young women will be free to be sexually active without consequence, spoke of bills for $35 and $45 and more a month. It was quickly determined that discount pharmacies had the prescriptions for no more than $9 a month, which would seem to be affordable.
The idea of insurance is protection from catastrophic events by spreading the potential cost to many people, which will pay for the rare catastrophe. Actuaries, people good at math, do studies to determine how frequent and how expensive catastrophes are. The federal government apparently doesn’t have actuaries, and just wants everybody to pay for whatever free stuff the politicians want to give folks in exchange for their votes. This really isn’t how insurance is supposed to operate. And that is the point.
You don’t expect your car insurance to pay for replacing your wiper blades, replacing worn tires, changing your oil. You expect it to be there when you get in a wreck, because your car cost a lot, and if somebody sues you it will cost a lot, and you are not prepared to keep that amount of money set aside for the disastrous event.
Ms. Fluke is wrong, Barbara Boxer is wrong, and there is no silly “War on Women.”
Same problem, different event. Obama is bragging about fixing Medicare. He has eliminated the “donut hole” in the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan. There is a lot of criticism among Republicans of the Bush administration for passing it. No one, as far as I can tell, has attempted a serious study of the extent to which the plan is saving lives, for many seniors have their lives extended with new drugs. I understand that the Democrat Congress was going to pass the Drug plan anyway, but Republicans managed to insert the so-called “donut hole.” This is a major incentive inserted in the program to get seniors to participate in keeping costs down. And it has worked spectacularly. Bear with me, I know it’s insurance talk but I’ll be brief.
Seniors may choose from a number of different plans. There is a monthly premium and a yearly deductible. Once the deductible is met, there is a co-pay for drugs, high for brand name, low or free for generics. Once the senior and the plan have spent $2,930 for covered drugs, she is in the “donut hole.” As it was, the senior then had to pay her own costs until she had spent $4,700 for the year— when her coverage gap ends, and she pays only a small co-pay till the end of the year. Lots of incentive to avoid the “donut hole” where she has to pay for her own drugs — using generics whenever they are available, using mail-order pharmacies. Most will never reach it. If they needed help during the donut hole, it was available. That incentive made the drug plan come in far below estimates of what it would cost — a novelty in government programs. They never cost less than estimated.
Democrats, however, have a different understanding of insurance. Republicans believe you spread the cost to protect against catastrophe. Democrats believe that insurance means they give you free stuff and make the taxpayers pay for it.
The left could not stand the “donut hole”— it was so mean. So they are working on getting rid of it entirely. But what they are removing is the incentive to keep costs down.
Democrats don’t understand incentives, and it always shows up in their policies.
Filed under: Capitalism, Conservatism, Domestic Policy, Economy, Election 2010 | Tags: Bringing Unemployment Down, New Republican Governors, Tea Party Supported
In 2010, influenced by the Tea Party and it’s focus on the economy, 17 states elected new Republican governors. And since January of 2011, every one of those states saw their rate of unemployment drop an average of 1.35%. Fewer people without jobs, compared to the national rate of 8.2 percent unemployment.
Kansas – 6.9% to 6.1% = a decline of 0.8%
Maine – 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%
Michigan – 10.9% to 8.5% = a decline of 2.4%
New Mexico – 7.7% to 6.7% = a decline of 1.0%
Oklahoma – 6.2% to 4.8% = a decline of 1.4%
Pennsylvania – 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%
Tennessee – 9.5% to 7.9% = a decline of 1.6%
Wisconsin – 7.7% to 6.8% = a decline of 0.9%
Wyoming – 6.3% to 5.2% = a decline of 1.1%
Alabama – 9.3% to 7.4% = a decline of 1.9%
Georgia – 10.1% to 8.9% = a decline of 1.2%
South Carolina – 10.6% to 9.1% = a decline of 1.5%
South Dakota – 5.0% to 4.3% = a decline of 0.7%
Florida – 10.9% to 8.6% = a decline of 2.3%
Nevada – 13.8% to 11.6% = a decline of 2.2%
Iowa – 6.1% to 5.1% = a decline of 1.0%
Ohio – 9.0% to 7.3% = a decline of 1.7%
The national unemployment rate is 8.2 percent. Among the remaining states (12) with Republican governors, only Arizona (8.2), and New Jersey (9.2) are as high or higher than average. Texas (6.9%), Utah (6.%), Virginia (5.6%), Nebraska (3.9%) and North Dakota (3.%) are distinctly under. Just a coincidence, of course.
Filed under: Conservatism, Election 2010, History, Liberalism, Politics | Tags: Huckleberry Finn, Reading the Constitution, The 112th Congress
Oh dear, it’s apparently time again for the Huckleberry Finn controversy. Mark Twain published Huckleberry Finn 126 years ago, and it has been widely considered one of the great American classics ever since. With great frequency, since the late 1950s, mothers of schoolchildren have been horrified to find that a book that their children have been required to read contains the “N” word.
Calls for the removal of Huck Finn from reading lists have been regular occurrences. Huck Finn is the fourth most banned book in the U.S. A., according to Twain scholar Alan Gribben who is working with a small Southern publishing company to publish an edition in which the “N” word, which appears 219 times, is replaced by the word “slave.” Tom Sawyer uses the word four times.
Of course outrage has arisen. “Censorship.” Bowdlerization,” but it’s “Art.” And so forth. Ideas about what is proper reading for children have always been a matter of controversy. Books that are somewhat “different” or address uncomfortable subjects usually provoke mothers by the dozens, usually mothers who are not widely read themselves.
I was lucky. I was blessed with parents who didn’t particularly supervise my reading, for I was a voracious reader. Things that were over my head simply did not register. When I was in 8th grade, our teacher was reading National Velvet to us in class, eliminating all the bad words like damn or hell. We checked out the book at lunchtime to see what she was leaving out. At home I was reading The Big Sky, by A.B. Guthrie Jr., which led my teacher to call my mother to find out if she knew. She did.
Mark Twain was writing about a world and a time when racism was common, and making some important points about it. Sometimes novelists can get closer to the truth of an era than historians can. There’s controversy about that among historians.
There is a segment of society that wants desperately to rewrite history. To make the past agree with what they believe to be true today. They are ashamed of the past as it was, and want it not to be so; and they don’t want others to know that it was as it was. History is what happened. We no longer chop off people’s heads nor do we burn them at the stake. Most of us no longer believe in witches. Though in some societies these things still happen.
This is in part the same controversy that has arisen over the Republicans’ reading of the U.S. Constitution on the floor of the House. From the interesting comments of Ezra Klein to the folks on MSNBC, they simply do not understand the use of reading the document, when every legislator must swear an oath to:
solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
This is hard for Democrats who look upon the Constitution as an old-fashioned document that is hard to understand and is simply nor appropriate for the 21st century. Am I ranging too far afield to draw these comparisons?
Democrats insist upon an “evolving” Constitution, not one that can be amended when it seems necessary. Do remember the Eighteenth Amendment (Prohibition) was ratified January 16, 1919, and repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment, on December 5, 1933. This is pertinent only as a reminder that this is how the Constitution “evolves,” rather than in courtrooms or the halls of Congress. It does not “evolve” according to what is currently popular in European courts.
It was a good thing that the Constitution was read in the House today, and that both Democrats and Republicans participated. It was of course, a stunt of sorts, but perhaps a very necessary one. Will it send citizens scurrying to get their own copy of the Constitution? The Cato Institute has a dandy little pocket edition that contains both the Declaration and the Constitution. The Huck Finn controversy will end up where all the previous controversies have, and seems even sillier in the era of popularity of rap music. It’s hardly like kids do not hear the “N” word in full.
The world is not improved by attempting to alter history to make the unpleasant parts more palatable. History is to be studied to see what we can learn. Human nature is fixed, but we can only learn from our mistakes and successes and the mistakes and successes of those who have gone before. Ignoring history is a recipe for disaster.
Filed under: Election 2010, News, Politics, Progressivism | Tags: Congress, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker John Boehner
Oh frabjous day! Callooh Callay!
But while Americans kicked her out of the Speaker’s office, Democrats are poised to re-elect her today as their new minority leader. In other words, the American people threw Democrats out of power in the biggest electoral ass-kicking in 75 years , and Democrats response is to flip the American people the bird. They have nothing but contempt for the American people. And they have absolutely no intention of changing anything about their agenda, they will only fight harder and dirtier. After so-called “moderate” Democrats bore the brunt of their losses in November, the Democrat party is now far more radical and more extremist than ever. The only thing they have any intention of changing is the “tone” of their propaganda and lies.
Meet the new face of Congressional Dems — same as the very old, very unpopular face.