Hero In This Place

The latest from the fantastic kids at Tussing Elementary School and their teacher, Micheal Souder

How Much Fraud In Elections Is Acceptable?

“The GOP used voter intimidation and outright fraud to hand Florida to George W. Bush in 2000, and if we don’t stop them, they’ll do it again.” - New Jersey Democrat Senator Jon Corzine

Twelve years later and we still hear that cry coming from the Democrat camp, how Republicans “stole the 2000 election.” Never mind it is a lie that was quickly put to rest by a consortium of news media including the New York Times who wrote Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote.

I’ve lost count of how many times we have heard the cry “stolen election” coming from the Democrats, even once hearing regarding the controversial results in Washington State’s 2004 gubernatorial race, “consider that payback for 2000” from a local Democrat.

After President Bush won again in the 2004 election, the cries came to include Diebold Voting Machines “delivered Ohio to President Bush,” and “Ohio is the Florida of 2004.”

Of course, when Democrats made sweeping wins in 2006, Diebold was vindicated.

In fact, all of the cries of voter fraud, voter intimidation, ballot tampering and such just seemed to disappear as all of a sudden, Democrats had faith in our electoral system again. It was the Republicans who now began looking closer at fraud in our elections where they defended the system before.

Bipartisan efforts to “clean-up” our elective process dissipated as more and more fraud was detected and prosecuted, largely among Democrat voter drives.

Democrats began defending the process while Republicans began a drive to require voters present identification to show they are legally entitled to vote, driven by allegations of massive votes by illegal aliens, largely scoffed at by Democrats who proclaim Democrats Value ‘All Immigrants,’ presumably to include those in the country illegally and who have successfully registered to vote, provided they continue to vote Democrat, of course.

I wasn’t too surprised to read in the local paper, the Columbian, an AP article, Republicans search for voter fraud, find little. The Columbian, much like most of the rest of our lamestream media, are largely seen as unofficial daily newsletters for the Democrat Party, evidenced by their outrage over “voter fraud” when Republicans win elections, such as the 2000 presidential election, but fawn over the reliability of our process when Democrats win, as seen in 2006 and 2008.

Missed by all on the left is that if they truly found “little” fraud, obviously they did find “some” fraud.

Demos.org, a leftwing 'Think Tank' wrote in a 2003 study of voter fraud, “Elections are the mechanisms by which people choose their representatives. Given that the integrity of this process is central to democracy, there can be no compromise on the need for fair elections determined without the taint of fraud—whether on the part of voters, political parties, election administrators or others.”

By 2012, as more efforts have been launched to curtail voting by those not legally entitled to vote, their cry has changed to “voter intimidation and suppression” along with the rest of the liberal Democrats.

Cast aside by these same Democrats were cases of Thousands of voter registration forms faked in just one state, Indiana as the call went out of, “There has been no evidence of voter fraud yet, because voters have yet to go to the polls.”

As in every other area where mass fraud is suspected, revealing thousands does not reveal all. Just how many bogus voter registrations slipped by and were not caught?

A woman proved that point in Washington State after she successfully registered her dog to vote. Instead of seeing there was an obvious flaw in Washington State voter registration, state officials sought to prosecute the grandmother, even though she never cast any votes by her dog.

And still, Washington State remains one of two states were a drivers license can be obtained without any proof of citizenship, with applicants asked right away, “would you like to register to vote.”

With a valid Washington State Drivers License, another license can be obtained in just about every other state if not all.

James O’Keefe, in his Project Veritas uncovered several examples of the dead being still allowed to vote and potential fraud throughout many states as he presented himself at polling places asking for the ballot of someone deceased. Without being asked for any identification. He did not cast any votes, but videotaped how easily ballots were given him and when asked if he needed to show he was who he said he was, he was repeatedly told it was not necessary.

Democrats were the ones crying massive fraud, intimidation, disenfranchisement and ballot tampering throughout the Bush administration.

Today, they label efforts to ensure clean and honest elections as “suppression and intimidation.”

A valid I.D. must be shown everywhere, to use a credit card, obtain a loan, board an airplane, if pulled over by Police, even to buy a pack of smokes if you smoke, you must show valid proof of your legal eligibility.

But, when voting for the highest office in the land, Democrats desire no one be asked to show their eligibility, even though they demanded just that to enter their National Convention weeks ago.

It all begs the question, just how much fraud is acceptable to Democrats in our elections?

The obvious answer?

As long as Democrats win.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard Will Devastate Washington State’s Economy

Guest post re-posted with author's permission

In 2011, American drivers paid an all-time record high average price of $2.53 per gallon for gasoline. In 2012, we have seen average high records broken with a disturbing regularity – including a new record high for Labor Day last month. Economists across the country have discussed at length the impact that high transportation costs have on the economy in terms of reduced household purchasing power and increased prices for goods delivered by truck (i.e., everything that anyone buys at any store), which makes recent efforts by the University of California-Davis and the Obama Administration to develop a Low Carbon Fuel Standard program which will double gasoline and diesel prices particularly disturbing. 

The National LCFS Initiative, which is headed by UC-Davis and the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Lab, is dedicated to developing a cap and trade program for transportation fuels called a Low Carbon Fuel Standard that restrict use of traditional fuels like gasoline and diesel in the hopes of spurring development of “low carbon fuels” such as cellulosic ethanol, and increased use of electric and natural gas vehicles – a policy that is fundamentally ineffective and will be devastating to local economies. 

The model for a Low Carbon Fuel Standard – which would require a 10% reduction in the carbon intensity of the transportation fuel pool through fuel switching over 10 years – was first implemented in California, is currently being implemented in Oregon and has been supported by Washington Governor Christine Gregoire, who issued an Executive Order instructing the Washington Department of Ecology to assess whether Washington should adopt an LCFS in May 2009.

Proponents of low carbon fuel standards have claimed that an LCFS is a great way to lower the carbon content of fuel and reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions. However, several recent studies have shown that such a program will create unnecessary economic burdens for businesses and consumers in Washington while failing to actually lower GHG emissions.  

The reality is alternative fuels like cellulosic ethanol are not available commercially – let alone in the affordable quantities required by an LCFS. Further, alternative fueled vehicles are dramatically more expensive than traditional cars and trucks and are not projected to reach anywhere near the market penetration necessary for an LCFS program to achieve its carbon reduction goals. Forcing fuel providers to ration their traditional fuels to supply these scarce fuel alternatives will drastically increase the cost of gasoline, diesel and home heating oil for consumers—not to mention placing Washington’s refining industry at risk. 

According to the Washington Research Council, the state’s oil refining industry provided 30,000 direct and indirect jobs and 1.7 billion dollars in personal income while providing the state and local government $60.6 million in sales and use taxes and $87.8 million in business and occupation taxes. If an LCFS is allowed to take hold, the future of this valuable state industry is bleak.  

A simple lesson in supply and demand demonstrates the damaging effect this policy will have on Washington consumers. Taking traditional fuels out of the retail market will translate directly into increasingly expensive fuel prices for Washington families of all income levels. In fact, studies have shown that instituting an LCFS program will more than double gasoline prices and drive down individual household annual purchasing power by between $1,400 and $2,400 by 2025. Not a welcoming sign for consumers in a state with an unemployment rate of 8.5, now well above the national average.

From a macroeconomic perspective, the UC Davis proposal looks even worse. According to a 2010 study by Charles River Associates a national LCFS would cause the US Gross Domestic Product to decline by two to three percent by 2025—a total loss of between $410 and $750 billion for our economy.

As if that wasn’t enough, the LCFS program in California was recently ruled unconstitutional for violating the Commerce Clause. 

Given all of these negative economic and environmental outcomes, can the Evergreen state truly risk adopting such a damaging policy – particularly with Washingtonians already facing record high fuel prices and a sagging economy?  

To learn more about how a low carbon fuel standard would hurt Washington you can visit http://www.secureourfuels.org/.

Michael Whatley

Executive Vice President of Consumer Energy Alliance

  

Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, comprised of more than 180 affiliate members, including energy consumers and producers, and tens of thousands of consumer advocates, that supports the thoughtful utilization of energy resources to help ensure improved domestic and global energy security, stable prices for consumers and balanced energy policy for America.

We've heard it all before, Barack

Can we take another 4 years of Obama's failures? He only proposes more of what he promised in 2008 and not one thing he proposed then helped.

Obama Loses Support Among Women & Independents

Read more at Obama vs Romney Polls: Obama Tanks Among Women and Independents