Ever seen a hungry squirrel? If you don’t keep an eye on them, those critters can ruin a picnic. So here is a post about keeping an eye on the squirrels.
From time to time The Washington Times runs articles on voter fraud. So far, since Democrats don’t see the need to carefully consider the issue using actual data, much of discussion is based upon statistical studies. Unfortunately, most of us have a poor understanding of statistics (and reporters have no special skill in that area), so the Time‘s articles sometimes leave us scratching our heads with skepticism.
A right-leaning fact-checker is fighting critics on the left who say its conclusion that a lot of noncitizens vote illegally is bunk.
The online battle of debunking and rebuttal is playing out as a much larger war has erupted between President Trump’s commission on election integrity and Democratic state leaders. They are refusing to provide the panel with public voter registration data. Left-wing groups are suing to stop the commission’s work, which could settle the noncitizen debate by collecting enough data.
In the fact-check standoff, there is Just Facts, a small New Jersey firm of conservative and libertarian policy analysts who promote what they say is solid independent research.
Just Facts President James D. Agresti issued a blockbuster report in June. Using previous research, polling data and Census Bureau figures, his team concluded that as few as 594,000 noncitizens or as many as 5.7 million voted in the 2008 presidential election. If accurate on the high side, it would vindicate Mr. Trump’s contention that a lot of illegal ballots were cast in his race for the White House last year with Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Challenging Mr. Agresti are fact-checkers PolitiFact and Snopes.com, which conservatives generally view as liberal; liberal college professors; and left-leaning news sites such as HuffPost. (continued here)
Consider, however, the primary reason why the refutations leave us even more baffled. Democrat Liberals don’t even want to ID people before they vote, and they sure don’t want to look at actual voting data. That’s why President Trump’s voter fraud commission has to go to court to get access to the data.
A federal judge ruled Monday that President Trump’s voter fraud commission may continue collecting state voter information.
U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly denied a watchdog group’s request to halt the collection of voter registration information from 50 states and the District of Columbia. The Electronic Privacy Information Center, a nonprofit focused on privacy rights, sought to prohibit further collection of information and asked the commission to “delete and disgorge any voter roll data already collected or hereafter received.”
It is another court win for the commission, which is headed by Vice President Mike Pence and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach. Kollar-Kotelly previously denied an injunction sought by the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law to open a July 19 meeting to anyone who would like to attend. (continued here)
When Democrat Liberals tell us significant vote fraud does not exit, should we believe them? Are these people credible? Consider some of the items in their track record.
- When Democrat Liberals tell us that we should call a he a “she” or a she a “he”, do they make any sense? Isn’t their definition of marriage, which can include two people of the same sex, based purely upon wishful thinking?
- When Democrat Liberals insist upon implementing endless socialist programs, can they point to an example that actually worked better than the capitalist industries or nonprofits they replaced?
- When Democrat Liberals demand that we raise the “minimum wage”, why don’t we ask they we ask them why anyone would want to pay someone more than they are worth? Is it because these Democrat Liberals are the same squirrelly people running our education system?
- When Democrat Liberals interpret the Constitution, are their interpretations in accord with the plain language of that document, or do their interpretations look more like lawyerly obfuscations?
- When Democrat Liberals always propose solutions which give them more power, should we believe they can be trusted with the power they already have, much less more power?
What is wrong with each of us taking responsibility for our lives? How can some politician in Washington D.C. know more about our needs than we do? We can’t be trusted to spend our own money?
Give it some thought. Can’t you come us good reasons to question the growth of government power? Then start taking an active interest in your government. Help Conservative politicians get elected. Otherwise, just because no one is willing to make the effort to stop them, the squirrels and nuts will take over.