Voter ID Laws Don’t Stop People Voting

image credit: texastribune.org

In favor of Voter ID laws:

No difference across race, gender, or party, analysis finds

Getty Images

Charles Fain Lehman at Washington Free Beacon (h/t Instapundit) reports:

Strict voter ID laws do not suppress turnout, a new paper finds, regardless of sex, race, Hispanic identity, or party affiliation.

Requiring photo ID to vote is a hotly contested subject in American political discourse. Proponents argue that it is necessary to insure against fraud and preserve the integrity of the American electoral system. Opponents argue that it will disenfranchise otherwise eligible voters—many of whom would be poor and of color—who are unable to easily obtain ID.

In total, 10 states, ranging from Georgia to Wisconsin [and including Ohio], require voters to show ID in order to vote. Seven of those states require a photo ID, and three do not. An additional 25 states "request" that voters display ID, but may still permit them to vote on a provision ballot if they cannot. The remaining states "use other methods to verify the identity of voters," according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The new research, from an economics professor at the University of Bologna and another at Harvard Business School, indicates that "strict" voting laws of the type implemented in those ten states do not have a statistically significant effect on voter turnout.

Full report is here. Ohio’s Voter ID laws are considered “strict.”  See here.  

# # #

Happy Birthday, President Lincoln

Happy Birthday, President Lincoln

Border Security: Trump Rally in El Paso at the Tex-Mex border

Border Security: Trump Rally at 9pm

Conservative Treehouse links to the dedicated streams from three sources.  Starts at 9pm.  Beto O’Rourke’s counter-rally for open borders also starts at 9pm.  CBS reports here.

# # #

Green New Deal: insane, dangerous, etc.

Image credit: federalobserver.com

Patricia McCarthy at American Thinker considers Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez "A One-Woman EMP":

An electromagnetic pulse attack, essentially a nuclear device exploded at high altitude above America, would knock out power grids, rendering anything electrical or digital non-functional.  Cars, trucks, computers, etc. would be dead (unless still running vehicles from the 1960s).  The country would come to a full stop.  That is exactly what Miss. O-C is prescribing.  She means to send us back to an age her Millennial friends would not recognize.  Most of them would be unable to function, as so many are seriously lacking in the skills older generations grew up taking for granted.  Most young people would have no idea how to repair anything they own if it broke, least of all their cars.  They would be apoplectic if their smartphones were suddenly mute.  If Miss O-C were ever to implement any aspect of her Green New Deal, her very own friends would be reduced to the snowflakes they've been raised to be, helpless.

Another one of my favorite journalists, James Delingpole, puts the Green New Deal, in historical perspective at Breitbart:

Not everyone who believes in man-made climate change is a full on Commie. Some are merely useful idiots. But whatever reason people may have for supporting the scam – greed, stupidity, virtue-signalling, idiot leftist teachers – the net result is the same: bigger government, higher taxes, more regulation, lower standards of living. Exactly like you’d get under communism, in fact.

So color me completely unshocked by the Green New Deal. It looks like a revamped Communist Manifesto because that’s exactly what it is.

If implemented, the size of government would increase to levels never before seen in a Western economy. The state’s control of everything from wage levels to how businesses are run to your personal freedoms would be total. There’s no mention of gulags or political prisoners or secret police but of course those would inevitably follow because how else would the state have a hope of enforcing measures which freedom loving Americans would naturally resist?

Here’s hoping the Green New Deal and its sponsors will all implode. Soon.

# # #

Solyndra on steroids: how to stifle competition

Lots of us are laughing at AOC’s idiotic Green New Deal “plan.” Tea Party people want smaller, not bigger government. Mr. Instapundit linked to a timely analysis by Chelsea Follett at Human Progress:

“The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.” Senator Bernie Sanders first said those words in 1974 and has been repeating them ever since. Senator Sanders is not alone in his belief. Three out of four Americans agree with the statement, “Today it’s really true that the rich just get richer while the poor get poorer.” 

Senator Sanders is half right: the rich are getting richer. However, his assertion that the poor are becoming poorer is incorrect. The poor are becoming richer as well. 

Economist Gary Burtless of the Brookings Institution showed that between 1979 and 2010, the real (inflation-adjusted) after-tax income of the top 1 percent of U.S. income-earners grew by an impressive 202 percent. He also showed that the real after-tax income of the bottom fifth of income-earners grew by 49 percent. All groups made real income gains. While the rich are making gains at a faster pace, both the rich and the poor are in fact becoming richer. 

In addition to these measurable real income gains, decreases in prices have given the poor increased purchasing power, helping to raise living standards for the worst off in society. As a result of falling prices such as for groceries and material goods, along with gains in real income, Americans have more income left after basic expenses.

Technology has also become cheaper, improving our lives in unexpected ways. For example, consider the spread of cell phones. There was a time when only the wealthiest Americans could afford one. Today, over 98 percent of Americans have a cellular subscription, and the rise of smart phones has made these devices more useful than ever.

Unfortunately, progress has been uneven. In those areas of the economy where competition is hobbled, such as education, housing, and healthcare, prices continue to increase. 

. . .

“Competition is hobbled” whenever the government intrudes. Ms. Follett's full article is here. (And Solyndra is now defunct.)

# # #

"a frenzy of primal extremism"

Conrad Black’s take on President Trump and the potential historical impact of his policies is encouraging. Black concludes:  

Donald Trump’s greatest achievement may be the total annihilation of the Democratic Party in its present mutated and degraded form. The Democrats have been allowed to slither to their present state of moral degradation with the witless and spineless collaboration of look-alike Republicans who are easy to defeat, like McCain and Romney, or can be survived, like Reagan and the Bushes, or destroyed, like Nixon.

Faced with a Trump they could not defeat and cannot destroy, Democrats appear to be entering a frenzy of primal extremism. If the Democrats go to the voters next year as the party of infanticide, open borders, a 70 percent top personal income tax rate, and the practical abolition of private health care, they will vanish more quickly, and with less distinction, than the Whigs, who at least had serious leaders like Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and Abraham Lincoln before their party imploded. This thronging riff-raff of Democratic presidential aspirants couldn’t lead the country across Washington’s Francis Scott Key Bridge, and won’t get an invitation to try.

The full article at American Greatness is here.

# # #

SOTU and the Women in White

photo credit: Breitbart

Breitbart caption: 

President Donald Trump did the unthinkable Tuesday night during his State of the Union address: he inspired a phalanx of left-wing women members of Congress,

 wearing white in protest, to jump to their feet and applaud.

Lots of commentary on President Trump’s State of the Union speech last night – but here’s part of Don Surber’s posting:

President Trump gave Americans a reason to stand up and cheer their nation.

Even Democrats.

In 2018, they stoically refused to applaud anything in his speech even when he noted Democrats were doing well.

This year, be broke that wall of their resistance like it was Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on Election Day. It happened earlier in the speech.

“So let’s work together, compromise, and reach a deal that will truly make America safe. As we work to defend our people’s safety, we must also ensure our economic resurgence continues at a rapid pace. No one has benefited more from our thriving economy than women, who have filled 58% of the newly created jobs last year,” President Trump said.

The Women In White stood and cheered.

“You weren’t supposed to do that. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. All Americans can be proud that we have more women in the workforce than ever before,” President Trump said.

“Don’t sit yet. You are going to like this. And exactly one century after Congress passed the constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote, we also have more women serving in the Congress than at any time before.”

Then they really celebrated and shouted USA! USA! USA!

At that point, the president made it cool to want to Make America Great Again.

That scene told the tale of the night. He made those congresswomen feel good about themselves and about their country.

His full column is here. Full transcript of the SOTU speech is here (Conservative Treehouse).

# # # 

UPDATE: Patricia McCarthy at American Thinker had a more critical take:

Trump's SOTU speech was wonderful, factual and optimistic.  It was a celebration of America and the successes of the last two years.  No one would know it by the visible response of the ladies in white (allegedly an homage to women's suffrage), the mostly newly elected Democrat congresswomen.  The only part of the speech they sincerely applauded was themselves – more women in Congress.  For most of the rest of the speech, they sat on their hands, looking mad (Mazie Hirono), glum (all of them), petulant and dismissive (Kamala Harris), bored and studiously disinterested (Nancy Pelosi).  

. . .

It was a pathetic, un-American spectacle, those women.  In the end, they are about one thing, one thing only: rage.  Rage at whom and what?  Who knows?  But it cannot be the country.  Look at where they are, the success they've attained.  Each of them is an example of the opportunity, freedom, and equality that only this nation provides, and still they are angry.  They still want to abort fully formed infants, tax the rich into oblivion, and impose Venezuelan-style socialism on us all.

McCarthy's article is here.

# # #