Study Finds Voter ID Requirements Don’t Repress Minority Votes

Study Finds Voter ID Requirements Don’t Repress Minority Votes

FEBRUARY 20, 2019 By Angela Morabito

Voter ID requirements do not affect voter turnout, according to a new working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The researchers looked at 1.3 billion data points on U.S. voters from 2008 to 2013, and they found that “the laws have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation.”

For years, opponents of voter ID laws have equated them with disenfranchisement. The American Civil Liberties Union says “voter ID laws deprive many voters of their right to vote” and that they “reduce participation.” Writing for CNN Politics, reporter Eric Bradner addressed voter ID requirements as “discriminatory voting laws.” The Democratic Party’s official website addresses voter ID laws as if they are anathema to democracy.

As it turns out, none of their fears about voter ID were backed up by this large study. This is great news: The country can now take obvious steps to protect the integrity of our elections, knowing that enacting voter ID laws will not disenfranchise anyone. In a fact-based political environment, everyone would celebrate this. Instead, don’t expect special interest groups to change their positions based on this new information.

The study found no difference in voter turnout for either primary or general elections based on voter ID laws. Whether the law required a photo ID or allowed something like a utility bill to suffice as identification, the outcome remained the same: turnout did not change for any demographic group.

This runs counter to what we have been told about voter ID––that such requirements discriminate against minorities and the poor, who are the least likely to have a government-issued photo ID. This presents a policy problem. How do we make sure that every eligible person is able to cast a ballot, while making sure that no one votes more than once or in a district where they do not live? States have already figured out a solution; they make voter ID cards free for those in need, and allow people other ways to verify who they are.

Of the eight states that require photo identification at the polls, all of them issue voter ID cards to their citizens free of charge. Of the 10 states that request photo identification, four issue ID cards at no cost. The other six allow voters without photo ID to cast their ballots so long as they verify their identity another way, like with a signature that matches the one on their registration.

Public support for voter ID requirements is high, with Rasmussen reporting that 67 percent of likely voters would support a requirement to show identification at the polls. However, this number has been declining steadily since 2010, when support for voter ID reached 82 percent. Arguments against voter ID are working, even if they are incorrect. Public opinion is changing, and it’s not changing based on facts.

Critics will be quick to point out that the voter ID study also found that ID requirements did not cut down significantly on fraud. However, researchers only looked at 2,068 instances of real or suspected fraud. That’s only 40 per state.

State and local governments set their own requirements for reporting voter fraud, and many of them are not very thorough. The researchers openly acknowledge that the data sets they worked with were not comprehensive in this respect. It is impossible to measure changes in voter fraud rates when reports of fraud are not being recorded consistently. This is not a reason to ignore voter fraud, but to track it, and use that data to inform future policy decisions. We don’t know what we don’t know.

What we do know is that anyone who is eligible to vote can do so, no matter the identification requirements. For years, politicians and special interest groups have told us that fewer people will vote when ID is required. In this study, American voters proved them wrong. Anyone who says voter ID laws decrease participation is factually incorrect––and they’re underestimating the American public’s commitment to participating in self-rule.

Angela Morabito is a writer, strategist, and consultant in Washington, D.C. She appears on Fox News, Fox Business, and many radio shows across the country. Follow her on Twitter @AngelaLMorabito.

http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/20/study-finds-voter-id-requirements-dont-repress-minority-votes/

Elizabeth Warren Shows Her Socialist Stripes

Elizabeth Warren Shows Her Socialist Stripes

by Marta Hernandez in politics 7 Comments

We already knew 2020 Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren is a liar. We knew she claimed to be a Native American to get benefits and special treatment, and scored herself a plum teaching position at Harvard University, claiming to be a minority. Warren taught law, which boggles the mind, because the woman has no comprehension of the concept of fundamental rights.

Elizabeth Warren

✔@ewarren

Child care should be a fundamental right, period. I remember how hard it was to find affordable, high-quality child care for my two kids when I was a working mom – and it's a zillion times harder today. Here’s how my #UniversalChildCare plan works. https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-plan-for-universal-child-care-762535e6c20a?source=friends_link&sk=4ed76dbac4cac36c0a7944df8a0a5b30 …

3,058

5:20 AM - Feb 19, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

My plan for Universal Child Care – Team Warren – Medium

By Elizabeth Warren

medium.com

1,967 people are talking about this

No, really. A zillion.

Not only does Warren claim that health care should be government-funded, along with her fellow socialist leeches, who claim that need is a claim check on the skills, knowledge, hard work, and education of medical personnel, but now the former law professor exhibits her profound ignorance about the concept of fundamental rights by claiming that those who need it also must appropriate the efforts of child care providers.

And how does Warren plan to pay for her “child care for all” plain? By stealing from the rich, of course! Because people who have achieved a certain amount of success in life, and who may or may not have children of their own, must be forced to pay for the decisions of others who chose to breed, but can’t afford the result. And no one will pay more than 7 percent of their income for child care, no matter how many kids they have!

The Massachusetts senator’s plan, unveiled Tuesday on Medium.com, would make child care free for families with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty level, or less than $51,500 for a family of four. Other families would pay up to 7 percent of income, depending on how much they earn.

The plan wasn’t met with a whole lot of enthusiasm on Twitter, where people with a modicum of understanding about the issue took Warren to task on her ignorance.

Some chick named Heather@hboulware

As someone who spent almost 20 years working in child care I will tell you this is absolute bullshit. No one has a fundamental right to my time, labor, and talent.

Elizabeth Warren

✔@ewarren

Child care should be a fundamental right, period. I remember how hard it was to find affordable, high-quality child care for my two kids when I was a working mom – and it's a zillion times harder today. Here’s how my #UniversalChildCare plan works. https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-plan-for-universal-child-care-762535e6c20a?source=friends_link&sk=4ed76dbac4cac36c0a7944df8a0a5b30 …

1,363

12:15 PM - Feb 19, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

471 people are talking about this

Warren is adopting the Occasional-Cortex plan of action to reach the White House: give people free shit by robbing the rich – those evil millionaires (a club to which she belongs) and billionaires whose “Scrooge McDuck diving into a pool of riches” image she works to promote to ensure that her mindless, brainless, frothing proglodyte freeloaders don’t feel too guilty about looting their fellow Americans.

Courtesy of Pixabay, License

So what happens when Warren has appropriated all the money from billionaires? Then the millionaires become the “rich” target. Once the millionaires have been eliminated, then those earning $500,000 and above become “the rich,” while those who spend their lives demanding a higher minimum wage and aspiring to nothing more than getting paid more than their labor is worth to their employer continue to suck dry those who have learned, achieved, and succeeded.

Until no more “rich” remain.

Then whom will Warren bleed to retain her power? Those making more than $250,000 per year? And when she’s appropriated their earnings, because they’re the only “rich” people left in the country, will she then target the next lowest demographic?

This is how socialism works, boys and girls. It bleeds dry every producer, every employer, and everyone who has the courage to work their way to the top, cutting the top until there’s equal misery for all.

People like Warren, Kamala Harris, and Bernie Sanders sit at the top of the pile of corpses their efforts create and suck the marrow out of their bones, and it all begins with redefining the concept of “fundamental rights.”

In 2016, economist Walter Williams wrote a column discussing the concept of fundamental rights, after Bernie Sanders burst onto the electoral stage like a drunken streaker at a college football game (I’ll give you a moment to bleach that image out of your brain).

In the standard historical usage of the term, a “right” is something that exists simultaneously among people. As such, a right imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech is something we all possess. My right to free speech imposes no obligation upon another except that of noninterference. Similarly, I have a right to travel freely. Again, that right imposes no obligation upon another except that of noninterference.

Contrast those rights to free speech and travel with the supposed rights to medical care and decent housing. Those supposed rights do impose obligations upon others. We see that by recognizing that there is no Santa Claus or tooth fairy. If one does not have money to pay for a medical service or decent housing and the government provides it, where do you think the government gets the money?

Where, indeed?

If you believe that doctors (and child care providers and home builders) deserve to get paid for their knowledge, their labor, and their expertise, how will the government pay them?

Well, since the government doesn’t produce anything, the only way it can pay these professionals for their work is to appropriate that money from other Americans, and the government will have to decide how much to pay these doctors, these child care providers, and these home builders, taking away their right to set the value for their own labor.

And Warren’s plan will cost roughly $70 billion per year – yet more money that will be appropriated from Americans deemed “rich” enough to afford it.

If an individual knows that some nameless, faceless government bureaucrat will determine what he earns, how much of an incentive does said individual have to achieve? If a medical student understands that government officials will decide his salary, and that salary will be the same, no matter if he graduates first in his med school class or last, do you think he’s going to expend the effort to be the best? Do you believe that doctor will give his best if he is forced to work for his brothers, with the value of his labor determined by the likes of Elizabeth Warren?

Would you trust your child to a care giver whose salary is paid for by the government, and who is accountable to the state that pays its salary rather than you, the parent? What incentive does that care giver have to perform better and provide better care for your children if her right to determine the value of her efforts and knowledge has been abrogated?

Not only does Elizabeth Warren (and other 2020 Democratic contenders) want to violate the rights of Americans to determine how much their knowledge, experience, expertise, and efforts are worth, but she wants to steal from other Americans to pay that predetermined rate – all so those who claim need can cash in that claim check at others’ expense.

Any time these socialist parasites promise free health care, free child care, free housing, or free food, one must ask who is to provide said free service, and at whose expense it is being provided.

You do not have the right to force doctors to provide treatment for you.

You do not have the right to force child care providers to care for your spawn.

You do not have the right to force builders to construct a home for you.

The only way you can do it is through violence – at the point of a government gun – and that’s what the Democrats want. That’s what their vision of a utopian society will devolve into.

Featured photo: DonkeyHotey, Flickr (license CC BY 2.0, cropped)

https://victorygirlsblog.com/elizabeth-warren-shows-her-socialist-stripes/

THE GREATEST SCANDAL IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE

BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN CLIMATE

I have written many times about the unwarranted “adjustments” to measured past temperatures by government agencies, which serve to inflate the modest warming that has occurred in recent decades. Organizations around the world (NOAA and NASA-GISS here in the U.S.) have done this over and over, usually surreptitiously. The Manhattan Contrarianshares my opinion that this misrepresentation of the historical record is the worst scandal in the history of science. The most recent instance comes from Australia:

For those new to this topic, the Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time is the systematic downward adjustment of early-year temperatures in order to create a fake enhanced warming trend, the better to bamboozle voters and politicians to go along with extreme measures to try to avert the impending “climate crisis.”
***
The latest news comes out of Australia, via the website of Joanne Nova. Nova’s February 17 post is titled “History keeps getting colder — ACORN2 raises Australia’s warming rate by over 20%.” “ACORN2” is a newly revised and updated temperature series for Australia, with temperatures going back to 1910 based on records from 112 weather stations on the continent, some 57 of which have records that go back all the way to the 1910 start date…. The ACORN2 data compilation is so called to distinguish it from ACORN1, which was only released some 7 years ago in 2012.
***
Once again we find that the oldest thermometers were apparently reading artificially high, even though many were newish in 1910 and placed in approved Stevenson screens. This is also despite the additional urban warming effect of a population that grew 400% since then. What are the odds?! … The new ACORN version has nearly doubled the rate of warming in the minima of the longest running stations.

This simple bar chart shows how the Australian government’s “adjustments” have artificially inflated the warming trend:

Another Australian named Gillham has also worked to uncover the shenanigans at Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology. He created this chart, which plots the original raw temperature records against ACORN1 and ACORN2. You can plainly see how those responsible for the records have systematically lowered the measured temperatures of earlier years in order to inflate the warming of recent years:

The Contrarian comments:

As you can see, the “raw” and “v1” temperatures tend to be close — sometimes one higher, sometimes the other. But v2 is significantly lower across the board in the earlier years. Then, suddenly, in the recent years, it tracks the “raw” almost perfectly.

One amusing aspect of this story is the explanation for the latest revisions given by the creators of ACORN2. It is, in a word, incoherent. The Contrarian elaborates:

The one-word explanation is “homogenization.” OK, we understand what that is. For example, sometimes a station moves, and that causes a discontinuity, where, say, the new location is systematically 0.1 deg C lower than the old. An adjustment needs to be made. But these sorts of adjustments should cancel out. How is it possible that every time some official meteorological organization anywhere in the world makes some of these “homogenization” adjustments, the result is that earlier years get colder and the supposed “global warming” trend gets enhanced — always to support a narrative of “climate crisis?”

Good question! Here, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has released a 57-page explanation of why it altered the historic temperature record:

As far as I am concerned, this is the definitive proof of the fraud. If this were even an attempt at real, credible science, the proponents would put out a document complete with the details of the adjustments — and all of their computer code — so that an independent researcher could replicate the work. Nothing like that is here. This is pure bafflegab. Nova calls it “impenetrable,” which is way too nice a word as far as I’m concerned.

He includes an excerpt from the ABM’s document that amply justifies that assessment. It is actually pretty funny, reading like one of the parody articles that Steve has so much fun with–the ones that get published in “peer reviewed” journals even though they are pure nonsense, larded with cliches.

The excerpt from the ABM’s explanation of its work concludes with this:

All of these methods, which use different statistical approaches, have been successfully used across a range of networks since their development. Further details on their implementation are given in Appendix C.

About which the Contrarian comments:

My favorite part is that reference at the end to “Appendix C.” This document has no Appendix C. There are three appendices, numbered Appendix 1, Appendix 2 and Appendix 3. That’s about the intellectual level we are dealing with.

I don’t think there is any mystery about why employees of government agencies around the world systematically alter historical records–amazingly enough, always in the same direction. But the Contrarian draws a parallel that I think is apt:

And finally: over the years as I have accumulated posts on this topic, several commenters have suggested that I must be alleging some kind of conspiracy among government climate scientists in making these adjustments. I mean, without that, how does it come about that the Australians just happen to be making the exact same kinds of adjustments as NASA, NOAA, and for that matter, as the Brits at the Hadley Center in the UK?

If your brain is wondering how that could be, I would suggest that we have the same kind of phenomenon going on here as the hate crime hoax phenomenon. How does Jussie Smollett just happen to fake a hate crime playing right into the progressive narrative of the moment — just as did the Duke lacrosse team hoaxer, and the Virginia fraternity hoaxer, and the Harvard Law School black tape hoaxers, and many dozens of others? (Here is a compilation of some 15 recent hate crime hoaxes.) Did they all coordinate in one grand conspiracy? Or did they all just realize what was needed from them to support their “team” and its narrative?

There is a great deal of narrative supporting going on these days.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/02/the-greatest-scandal-in-the-history-of-science.php

Trump’s Chances to Win in 2020 Improve with Every News Cycle

Trump’s Chances to Win in 2020 Improve with Every News Cycle

 

BY MARK ELLIS 

(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

If the presidential election were held today?

Donald Trump would win again, by defeating Democrats on the same battlegrounds that secured for him the Oval Office in 2016. Lots of people believe that. Many others think Trump’s reelection chances are 50/50 at best. Democrats and Never-Trump holdouts hoping and praying that he’s already toast have convinced themselves that there is no way in hell a majority of voters in key states will elect him to a second term.

But one factor in the debate is undeniable. Trump’s chances have gotten a lot better recently. His State of the Union address was magnificent. Rasmussen has his approval rating hovering around 50 percent. What promises he has not yet fulfilled or policy goals he has not yet achieved he is earnestly trying to fulfill and achieve, against opposition that would have withered most garden-variety politicos—you know, the people Trump defeated.

He’s working hard and succeeding in many areas. But significant credit for Trump’s improved outlook can be placed directly at the feet of and on the plate of the extremist left, that is, the Democratic Party. The stories being driven relentlessly home by conservative media—the unconscionable treatment of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, the Covington Catholics, the embarrassment of the Green New Deal, Virginia’s governmental minstrel show with sex abuse on the side, and late-breaking Deep State coup d' etat revelations from former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe—are grafting onto 2020 Democratic hopefuls the onus of cognitively dissonant un-American insanity.

The big story of the last week centered around the pathetic Jussie Smollett, which, while being a repulsive item, represents a net positive for the Trumpservative cause. Every time the left and its media propagandists get within striking distance of a salient message that might resonate with the populace, some malcontent crawls out of the woodwork and gives pause to fence-sitting independents and wavering Republicans who may be pondering a change in course. The vandals who defaced the iconic statue of the homecoming WWII sailor exuberantly sweeping a wartime nurse off her feet are only the latest exhibits in the case against the social justice-incensed, identity politics-obsessed blame-America-first transformers.

The supply of irresponsible and reprehensible leftist actions and positions is inexhaustible; there will be some new egregious offense in the news next week.

Smollett will soon be consigned to the status of disreputable asterisk and vanish into the oblivion of leftist mercy bookings, his fifteen minutes of ignominy and politico/media/celebrity enablement only having served to strengthen a growing perception of the true nature of leftist designs, bias, bigotry, and hate.

The Green New Deal (and similar socialistic proposals) and McCabe’s potentially self-incriminating revelations have real narrative staying power, however, and provide excellent utility for Republicans and Trumpservatives preparing to mount a no-holds-barred campaign to hold the White House. The truth of what Democrat ascendancy means for our constitutional republic is playing out with unprecedented overreach and bold-facedly subversive clarity. It is a truth revealed that argues well for the prudent decision to not switch horses in the middle of a swamp.

While staying the course and with the full understanding that President Trump is the only real hope for national survival in the next election, his base of voters was forced to swallow a bitter pill with the recent shutdown-coerced immigration deal. Monitoring social media and listening to conservative talk radio reveals that many are feeling Ann Coulter’s pain.

But is the president really to blame? Here’s a refresher on how the quest for $5.7 billion got derailed. When the GOP recently controlled both houses of Congress, Trump was hampered in fulfilling his all-important immigration campaign promises due to the necessity of needing a 60-vote Senate majority to stanch the flow of illegals pouring across the border. He only got affirmation from a dithering House and outgoing functionary “suit” Paul Ryan at the eleventh hour. As the midterm election loomed, Mitch McConnell would not allow a vote on something everybody knew wouldn’t pass. Though a lost opportunity due to Democrat intransigence and numerical realities, a vote at least would have demonstrated to Republican voters where their elected senators stand on immigration.

They should stand with President Trump, considering the two ways that the Republican Party can vanish like Jussie Smollett hopefully will: (a) if, due to weak Republican leadership, an entitlement-seeking, Democrat-voting horde of third-worlders invades the United States, or (b) if enough Republicans declare that they’ve had enough, and abandon a party that refuses to join in solidarity with what might be the last great “American” president.

Republicans who dither on national sovereignty are counterproductive and cowardly, but they are also dangerous inasmuch as they have no instinct for self-preservation.

Post-midterm, with the Democrats in the House majority, Trump was left with no choice but to sign an enervated bill that in some respects is the antithesis of what he promised. It was a setback, no spinning it, which conferred upon Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer the operational gestalt of having thwarted the best-laid plans of Trump and his administration. Declaring a national emergency and vowing to round up the money for the wall and other border security measures is the name of the immigration game now, and Mr. Trump’s best chance for maintaining the support of his base. His otherwise stellar achievements as commander-in-chief will serve him well in the Keep America Great campaign.

If the election was held today? The nation is getting a good look at the Democratic candidates. We’ve seen what the Democratic Party has to offer, both in the realm of policy and in the deeper, uglier realm of their tactical inhumanity and core ideologies.

Only Joe Biden can save the Democrats. Joe Biden cannot defeat President Trump.

https://pjmedia.com/election/trumps-chances-to-win-in-2020-improve-with-every-news-cycle/