PA: Number of votes exceeds the number of voters by more than 200K

How convenient: A comparison of the number of actual voters logged in Pennsylvania versus the number of votes counted has discovered a 200k discrepancy, with the number of votes exceeding the number of voters by that amount.

A comparison of official county election results to the total number of voters who voted on November 3, 2020 as recorded by the Department of State shows that 6,962,607 total ballots were reported as being cast, while DoS/SURE system records indicate that only 6,760,230 total voters actually voted. Among the 6,962,607 total ballots cast, 6,931,060 total votes were counted in the presidential race, including all three candidates on the ballot and write-in candidates.

The difference of 202,377 more votes cast than voters voting, together with the 31,547 over- and under-votes in the presidential race, adds up to an alarming discrepancy of 170,830 votes, which is more than twice the reported statewide difference between the two major candidates for President of the United States.

In other words, the count somehow found about 200K extra votes that do not belong to any known voters. We don’t know to whom these extra votes went, but who cares? They make the final tally very suspect.

The analysis was done by a group of Republican state lawmakers, who then said this:

“We were already concerned with the actions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the Executive branch, and election officials in certain counties contravening and undermining the Pennsylvania Election Code by eliminating signature verification, postmarks, and due dates while allowing the proliferation of drop boxes with questionable security measures and the unauthorized curing of ballots, as well as the questionable treatment of poll watchers, all of which created wholesale opportunities for irregularities in the 2020 presidential election.”

“However, we are now seeing discrepancies on the retail level which raise even more troubling questions regarding irregularities in the election returns. These findings call into question the accuracy of the SURE system, consistency in the application of the Pennsylvania Election Code from county to county, and the competency of those charged with oversight of elections in our Commonwealth.

“These numbers just don’t add up, and the alleged certification of Pennsylvania’s presidential election results was absolutely premature, unconfirmed, and in error.”

That’s nice, but what is the state legislature going to do about it? It is their responsibility, and just whining about voter fraud allegations accomplishes nothing. They need to actually vote to decertify the election if they are convinced it “was absolutely premature, unconfirmed, and in error.”

The problem of course is their Republican leadership, which doesn’t want to do that, because it might hurt the feelings of the Democrats. God forbid! It is all right to disenfranchise millions of Republicans and allow for election fraud, but allowing Democrat feelings to be bruised cannot stand!

Georgia state senate: Election “untrustworthy” and should be decertified

After reviewing the available evidence the chairman of the Georgia state senate’s judiciary committee has issued a report calling the election results “untrustworthy” and demanding that the election certification be rescinded.

You can read the report here [pdf] The article at the link above provides a nice summary.

Georgia State Senator William T. Ligon, Chairman of the Election Law subcommittee, reached that conclusion after reviewing the recount process, the audit process, current investigations taking place, and litigation that is moving forward. His Subcommittee also heard testimonies from witnesses during an open hearing at the Georgia State Capitol on Thursday, December 3, 2020.

“The November 3, 2020 General Election (the “Election”) was chaotic and any reported results must be viewed as untrustworthy,” Sen. Ligon wrote in his executive summary.

The report itself lists in detail all the documented allegations, either from witness affidavits or testimony or from actual videos showing corruption, misbehavior, or very suspicious behavior. It is important to note that we are not talking about one or two allegations by only a few witnesses. We are talking of a giant stack, in the hundreds, many backed up by video evidence.

It does appear possible, from statements in the article above, that the Georgia state legislature might act to reject the certification and the chosen Democratic electors before January 6th.

Dominion CEO responds to Antrim audit in hearing

All trust is lost: John Poulos, the CEO of Dominion, the company that provided the software and tabulators used to count ballots in numerous states and which have been accused of being unreliable and subject to vote tampering, responded to those charges in a legislative hearing in Michigan.

Poulos told legislators in Michigan via video link on Dec. 15 that his company’s machines and software were not involved in any “switched or deleted votes.” He said that because of a rule change, the machine programming needed to be updated in October. But Antrim County officials failed to update all 18 tabulators, meaning some had new programming while some still had the old programming.

Officials then forgot to conduct the logic and accuracy tests on the programming, he said. A third error took place when a contracting firm in October programmed the tabulators in a way that allowed memory cards with both the old and new programming to count votes. “If all of the tabulators had been updated as per procedure, there wouldn’t have been any error in the unofficial reporting,” he said.

Poulos also said any discrepancies with the counts from its machines can be investigated by referencing paper ballots and insisted that all audits and recounts of Dominion technology used in the 2020 election have “validated the accuracy and reliability” of the election results. “No one has produced credible evidence of vote fraud or vote switching on Dominion systems because these things have not occurred,” he insisted.

In the normal civilized America that once existed, I would be more prone to believe him. Considering the four years of outright lying that Democratic Party officials and their supporters have subjected us to, from a Russian collusion hoax to a fake Ukrainian impeachment of Trump to endless lies relating to COVID-19 lock downs to lying about the actual spying on Trump by the Obama administration to lying to the FISA court to obtain fake warrants to lying about Brett Kavanaugh and others, it is unreasonable for anyone to trust this man’s word. It is worthless.

And my opinion in this is not alone. Consider this response to his testimony by one Michigan Republican leader:

Linda Lee Tarver, president of the Republican Women’s Federation of Michigan and former election integrity liaison in the Michigan Secretary of State’s Office, said Thursday that Dominion chief John Poulos’s recent testimony left more questions unanswered than it clarified.

Tarver, who testified at a Michigan election integrity hearing on Dec. 2, said Poulos’s Dec. 15 testimony to lawmakers boiled down to reiterating that “human error” was to blame for an initial Election Day vote discrepancy in Michigan’s Antrim County, where Dominion products were used.

She said some of the questions that Poulos did not address include whether poll workers received proper training on the Dominion system, concerns about whether vote tabulators could use a USB stick to add votes to a candidate, and how prone Dominion systems are to hacking. Tarver also said chain-of-custody questions remained unanswered, and raised concerns about the ability of Dominion machines to connect to the Internet. Poulos confirmed that a small percentage of Dominion machines have Internet connectivity.

The only way to satisfy Republicans that the vote was honest is to allow a full and careful audit by their elected officials, to prove no fraud took place. Of course Democrats should be allowed to participate and question everything, but under no circumstances can they be allowed to dictate any terms on such an audit.

Key legal issues behind the Texas petition to Supreme Court re election issues

Link here.

The author reviews the petition, the logic behind it, and the legal possibilities. She also cogently reviews the worst examples of misbehavior in the four swing states, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Michigan, that justify Supreme Court action. If you are one of those people that refuses to recognize the illegalities in the handling of the election in those states, you should read this article to education yourself.

The key point however is this:

These injuries, Texas asserts, demand a remedy. But the remedy sought is not what some may surmise is the goal—a second term for President Trump.

No, what Texas seeks is for the Supreme Court to mandate that the defendant states comply with the Constitution, and that means that electors are selected by the states’ legislatures. Texas makes this point clear, stressing: “Plaintiff State does not ask this Court to decide who won the election; they only ask that the Court enjoin the clear violations of the Electors Clause of the Constitution.”

Texas is essentially demanding what I suggested several weeks ago: If election issues are not fixed, elected state Republicans must refuse to certify.

Texas is demanding that these four states put the decision to the legislatures, since their election counts cannot be trusted. While the arguments are sound, it remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will listen.

Arizona legislative Republican leaders call for election audit of Maricopa County

The Republican leaders of the Arizona state senate and house today called for an audit of the Maricopa County Dominion software and equipment used during election day.

This is a major change of position, as these leaders have until now resisted such action. Maybe their change of heart is because of the evidence revealed at an improvised hearing earlier this week, as well as the problems found with a random selection of only 100 ballots. Or maybe it was this:

Arizona Rep. Mark Finchem on Friday called on his fellow lawmakers to come together and recall Arizona’s certification.

Finchem said county clerks are now coming forward and admitting something is off with the canvassing and the numbers are just not adding up. “We got people coming out of the woodwork,” Finchem said adding that the legislature will just go around Governor Ducey.

“We only need to have 31 members of the House and 16 members of the Senate pass a resolution recalling our electors. It’s that simple,” he said. “Our constituents are blowing up over this.” [emphasis mine]

The Constitution in the matter of choosing the President is very clear: It is the job of the state legislatures, not the voters, not the governors, not the courts, and most especially not unelected officials in election boards. For decades these state legislatures have allowed the popular vote determine the choice, because everyone trusted the counting process. It appears no one does anymore, and when that happens, the state legislatures need to do their job.

The goal should be to determine if the vote is valid, or not. If valid, than Joe Biden won. Period. Congratulations to the Democrats, though I doubt anyone will end up celebrating their rule in the end. Their policy choices and their eager willingness to blackball and persecute their opposition will not bode well for the future.

If not valid, however, the legislature has several choices. They can call for a revote. They can choose the president themselves, picking electors that will reflect that choice. Or they can refuse to certify at all, sending the decision to the federal House of Representatives.

The state legislature has an additional responsibility, irrelevant of the presidential election. They must institute major changes that will prevent such problems ever again.

Finally, kudos must go to my own representative, Mark Finchem, for pushing this hard, and finally getting some results. The battle is not won, but at least the enemy is finally retreating slightly.

Strong evidence in Michigan that many ballots were scanned multiple times

An IT contractor who worked in Detroit at the location where votes were being tabulated has testified by sworn affidavit and in public testimony before Michigan legislatures that she saw an estimated 30,000 ballots scanned multiple times, illegally.

On November 10, Carone said in an affidavit that she witnessed “nothing but fraudulent actions take place.” “I observed numerous employees, city workers, running batches of ballots through the tabulators countless times, without discarding them first,” Carone said during the Wednesday evening hearing. She testified next to Rudy Giuliani, the personal attorney to President Trump, who has been leading most of the litigations efforts pertaining to the election.

Carone testified that on Election Day, the vote tabulating machines would jam up to three times an hour. When the machines would jam, election officials were supposed to reset the count on the machines to ensure that no ballots were scanned more than once, explained the witness. “Instead of discarding, they were just rescanning, rescanning, rescanning. Counting ballots nine to 10 times,” Carone said. She also said there were more than 20 tabulating machines at her ballot counting center.

Once again, this testimony does not prove, on its own, that the election was stolen. It does however demonstrate strong evidence that a full audit, of at least the Detroit voting center, is necessary before any result can be certified.

Strong video evidence of election law violations in Georgia during count

In testimony today before the Georgia state senate, the Trump legal team showed evidence from CCTV cameras of almost two hours of vote counting occurring during a period when all Republican counters and pollwatchers as well as the media had been told to leave because counting was going to cease.

According to Georgia election laws, no votes can be counted without the presence of representatives from both parties along with the pollwatchers and the press. Moreover, the law requires that the chain of possession of all tabulated votes be properly maintained. During the two hours of illegal tabulation, it appears that all of the counted ballots came from four suitcases with no provenience that were pulled from beneath a table where they had been hidden earlier in the day.

Based on the pace of tabulating, the number of ballots counted during those two hours was more than enough to swing the results one way or the other. That all Republicans had been ushered away suggests the ballots were not for Trump.

Does this prove the election was stolen? No, not on its own. However, it does make the entire election result questionable. And if nothing untoward was going on, it behooves the individuals shown on this video to come forward to explain and justify what was done. Until they do so, the Georgia vote count is not trustworthy.

I have embedded below the fold the testimony, with th video presented during this testimony.

» Read more

Arizona state legislators to hold public hearing on election fraud

A group of legislators from the Arizona House and Senate have organized a public hearing on November 30, 2020 in Phoenix, open to the public, where they will allow experts as well as President Trump’s legal team to present evidence of election tampering in Arizona.

The President’s legal team will be present from DC to assist in a fact finding hearing with select members of the Arizona House and Senate and a panel of experts. The goal will be to gather the evidence that justifies calling a special session to contemplate what happened and take immediate action accordingly.

The hearing will be chaired by state representative Mark Finchem, who also happens to be my own representative. I have been in correspondence with him for the past week about the election, trying to find out if the Republican-controlled legislature was going to do anything to deal with the significant questions relating to the vote count. It appeared that though he and other conservative legislators were trying to get the Republican leadership to bring the legislature back into special session, those leaders were stalling.

From the second link:

“Since shortly before the 2020 election a number of my colleagues and I have been examining potential fraud pathways and illegal actions through which our 2020 election could become tainted. My worst fears have come to light in the process, and so far the evidence has been blocked from an official public forum.,” Rep Finchem said. “A few weeks ago I requested approval for the House Federal Relations Committee to hold a hearing on the integrity of the Arizona 2020 election. That hearing has not yet been approved by House leadership, and time is of the essence to show proof that our election has been compromised.” [emphasis mine]

It appears these conservatives have decided to do an end-around of their RINO leadership, and hold these hearings anyway. According to what Finchem has told me, the hearing will be live streamed, beginning at 9 am (Mountain) by both the One America News Network (OANN) and the Western Journal.

The goal is to make the evidence public, and thus apply some pressure on that leadership, which includes Republican governor Doug Ducey, to bring the legislature back into session. As Finchem himself noted in a Western Journal podcast on November 24th, the Constitution is very specific. To paraphrase his comments, it specifically puts the job of picking the electors in the hands of the state legislatures, not the voters or the courts. It is their duty therefore to act.

If you live in Arizona, you should be calling the offices Governor Ducey (602 542-5381) as well as House Speaker Russell Bowers (602-926-3128), demanding that they bring the legislature back into session and address the evidence, forcing a correct and careful audit of the vote, and if this cannot clarify and correct the count (no matter who wins), deny any candidate the state’s electoral votes.

I must also note something I wrote to Finchem, and is also evident in Pennsylvania. Republicans and Trump are not being well served by the state Republican leaderships in both these states. In both cases the leadership has been reluctant to do anything, washing their hands like Pontus Pilate, even though there is strong evidence that the Democrats may have stolen the election.

This is shameful, and incredibly foolish on their part. If they do not do something now, they guarantee that in coming elections they will be removed from office, by further fraud and election tampering. Do they not have instinct for survival? Or are they content to walk into the gas chambers with nary a protest?

Arizona gov says he will not certify results until all lawsuits are settled

Arizona’s Republican Governor Doug Ducey today announced that he will not certify the results of the state’s presidential election until all the lawsuits involving issues in the count are settled.

In Arizona specifically, the Trump campaign and state GOP filed lawsuits in Maricopa County in a bid to block officials from certifying the election results due to alleged voter irregularities and improprieties.

“There are legal claims that are being challenged in court and everybody on the ballot has certain access rights and remedies and if they want to push that they are able. Once those are adjudicated and the process plays out, I will accept the results of the election,” the Republican governor said in a news conference on Wednesday.

Based on Ducey’s generally spineless leadership, I have no confidence in his announcement. I think he is playing us. He has done less than nothing to really make sure the vote is accurate, even though it is in his power to do so. For example, he could call the legislature back in session so that its Republican majority could get involved. He has refused to do this, keeping them out of the game. Moreover, his administration apparently chose the questionable Dominion election software used to count the vote, despite questions raised about it from many sources for years.

What I think he is doing is making it seem he cares. Then, when he folds like a house of cards to an untrustworthy recount, he can claim he was there for us. All hogwash.

The only saving grace to his announcement is that if no certification occurs before December 14th, the lack of Arizona’s electoral votes might force the decision into the House of Representatives, where the Republicans will have the votes to keep Trump president. If the Democrats wish to avoid this, they should be moving heaven and Earth to clear up any issues and thus settle the lawsuits.

Not surprisingly, I do not see the Democrats doing this. Instead, they are working to block any audits or proper recounts. Makes one wonder what they might be trying to hide.

Vote for Trump, but even more, vote Republican across the board

Trump

I’ve said it before but I will say it again. Donald Trump is the right candidate for president, and everyone who hasn’t yet voted should vote for him tomorrow, both because he kept his promises and has actually done a decent job as president.

However, it is even more important to vote for Republicans across the board. If Trump is re-elected but the voters do not give him strong majorities in both houses of Congress, his ability to do what the voters want will be seriously circumscribed. And if the Democrats win control of both houses of Congress, expect that their first order of business will be to impeach Trump and then try to remove him from office. The goal will be to quickly nullify your vote for Trump, by the party of segregation, slavery, riots, looting, and stolen elections.

And on the local city and state level things are quite simple. » Read more

Clinton campaign outlines its space priorities

In an op-ed today, an adviser to the Hillary Clinton campaign outlined the space policy priorities that her administration would focus upon should she win the election.

Despite attempts to suggest these policies would be significantly different than the policies of Donald Trump, it seems to me that her focus would be quite similar to Trump’s. While the announcements from the Trump campaign have suggested his administration would consider more changes to space policy than Clinton, both candidates appear to be proposing only minor changes. With both, the private-public partnership of commercial space would be continued. With both, SLS/Orion will be reconsidered, and changed depending on the demands of Congress.

The only significant difference, based on today’s op-ed, is that a Hillary Clinton administration will likely devote significant NASA resources to the study of global warming, while Trump appears quite willing to slash this research, based on what appears to be data tampering for political reasons in both NASA and NOAA.

Trump considers John Bolton for Secretary of State

In a radio interview today Donald Trump said that he was seriously considering appointing John Bolton as his secretary of state.

This could simply be pandering by Trump to the conservative audience he was speaking to, or it could be a real trail balloon. Either way, it emphasizes again that the policies of a president is largely determined by the people he surrounds himself with, first by indicating the direction the president is leaning, and second by providing counsel to that president. So far, the majority of Trump’s picks have leaned to the right, with some exceptions. Bolton would emphasize that rightward direction, and this is a very good thing.

By the way, I don’t know if my readers have noticed this, but the stories I have posted here about the presidential election campaign have had nothing to do with the stupid stuff that the mainstream and conservative media have been obsessing about. Instead, my focus, as always, is on trying to find out what these candidates will actually do when they become president, based on what they actually do (not say). Thus, I post about Trump’s potential appointments once in office, and real evidence that Hillary Clinton committed illegal acts as secretary of state. Making believe that Donald Trump is a monster because he made a minor miscue at one point in one speech is not a way to learn anything, other than to demonize the man absurdly and wrongly. I won’t participate in that childishness.

Hillary Clinton vows to investigate UFOs if elected

Well, we now know her priorities! In a meeting with the editorial board of a New Hampshire newspaper, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton vowed to find out once and for all whether UFOs have been discovered by the federal government and kept secret.

Her husband Bill Clinton apparently tried and failed to uncover those buried records while he was President.

I am sure this reassures you all. While the Republicans are distracted by unimportant issues, such as terrorism, radical Islam, a weak economy, an out-of-control federal budget, and a corrupt federal bureaucracy that is abusing its power while failing to do its job, Hillary Clinton has her sights on issues of real importance.

Money is worthless in 2016 Presidential campaign

A graph of the amount of money spent by candidates on television ads reveals the utter worthlessness so far in 2016 for spending a lot of money. The big spenders are doing poorly in the polls, while the frugal candidates are doing great.

The campaigns and allies for three establishment presidential candidates – Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and John Kasich – have spent a combined $47.5 million in TV ads in the 2016 race so far, according to ad-spending data from NBC News partner SMG Delta.

By contrast, the campaigns and allies for the three Republicans who have been leading or surging in the most recent polls – Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz – have spent just $2.9 million.

The full list at the link is even more astonishing. The three bottom Republican candidates in spending (Carson, Cruz, and Trump) are in the lead, while the four top spenders (Bush, Rubio, Kasich, and Christie) have gotten little for their money, with their campaigns mostly doing poorly. Rubio might be the only one with any traction, but I suspect he will crash and burn once Republican voters actually begin voting. They feel betrayed by him after he decided to make immigration amnesty his most important issue after his election, taking a position completely opposite to the positions he campaigned on.

What this graph tells us is that the geography of elections had changed drastically. Big money means much less. Other things are more important, including the reliability and trustworthiness of the candidates.

Why I am not impressed with Fiorina’s impressive words

During Wednesday’s Republican debate Carly Fiorina made a very strong and powerful condemnation of Planned Parenthood, based on what she described was contained in the very ugly undercover videos of that organization and its officials. You can watch her full statement here, but the key lines are these:

As regards Planned Parenthood, anyone who has watched this videotape, I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes. Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.

Not surprisingly, there has been a kerfuffle on the web between the left and the right on whether Fiorina was accurately describing what was on the videos. Many liberal news sites have noted, quite accurately, that none of those videos show exactly what Fiorina describes, while this story tries to fact check both her words and the liberal challenges to her, concluding that in essence the tapes did show something akin to what Fiorina described, but not exactly.

This debate however misses the point. Yes, Fiorina was getting the essense right. The videos do show a despicable organization whose officials are quite willing to harvest the body parts of newly born babies for profit. But this is not what I found significant about Fiorina’s statement.

When I watched this clip from the debate, my first thought was that it clearly demonstrated that Fiorina herself had not personally watched the tapes. In one breath she challenges Obama and Clinton to watch them, while in the very next breath she describes something that isn’t actually on the tapes, as she describes it, demonstrating that she has formed her opinions of these videos from hearsay or from a very superficial quick scan of them. While I agree with her about Planned Parenthood and what these videos prove about that organization, I found her statement very revealing. It told me that her knowledge on this subject is superficial with her opinions formed from hearsay evidence.

I found myself at that moment very unimpressed with Fiorina as a candidate. She might have the right principles, but her willingness to base her opinions on incomplete information and then demand that others agree with her I found very disappointing. The candidate the Republicans choose has got to be someone who is rock solid, with no sloppiness about his or her approach to the facts. With this one soundbite, however, Fiorina demonstrated to me that she is not rock solid, and can be sloppy. This is not a candidate I want running for President.

Anti-establishment non-politicians top Iowa poll

I normally don’t bother reporting on polls. They are notoriously unreliable and often force one to the wrong conclusions. Nonetheless, this poll appears significant because it indicates that it isn’t just Trump that the voters are turning to in their disgust of the establishment political elite community.

First, it is the first poll since late July that does not show Trump with a lead. Instead, Ben Carson ties him. Second, Carly Fiorina with 10% and Ted Cruz with 9% come in second and third.

Finally, and most important, Bush, Kasich, and Rubio, politicians who have demonstrated by their actions that once elected they cannot be trusted get little or no support.

For months I have strongly believed that Jeb Bush was going to go nowhere once the voting began. The Republican base does not want another Bush. Similarly, Rubio’s betrayal of the tea party voters who got him elected by his support of the Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration bill is well remembered by those tea party voters. They do not trust him.

Instead, I believe that it will be reliable conservatives or brash outsides like Cruz, Fiorina, Carson, and Trump who will get the votes. This poll suggests I might be right.

Having said this, I must emphasize again my mistrust of polls. It is just as likely this poll is a waste, and tells us nothing.

Vulnerable Senate Democrats are all Obama rubber-stamps

A vote for Obama: Every single one of the most vulnerable Democrats running for the Senate voted with Obama more than 96 percent of the time.

As senior writer Shawn Zeller writes in this week’s CQ Weekly cover story, Democrats … have been distancing themselves from Obama on the campaign trail not in votes on the Senate floor — whether it be Mark Udall of Colorado, Mark Pryor of Arkansas or Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana: “Udall disagreed just once, on a Pennsylvania state judge’s nomination to a federal district court. Pryor parted with Obama three times, and Landrieu four, but only one of those votes was on a policy matter. In July, Landrieu voted against Obama’s request for $2.7 billion to deal with the surge of Latin American children entering the U.S. illegally.” Indeed, all of the most vulnerable Democrats voted with President Obama at least 96 percent of the time on the 120 votes on which Obama has urged a “yes” or “no” vote.

There are many take-aways you could get from this story, but I want to emphasis one: These Democratic candidates are all liars and consider the voters stupid. By claiming in their campaigns and debates that they are independent of Obama they are telling us that they think you are too stupid to see through their lies and will vote for them anyway.

Bottom line: a vote for a Democrat this election is a vote for the policies that Barack Obama has foisted on this country the past six years. Is that what we really want?

Note: Sorry for the lack of posts today, but up until now I have honestly not seen anything in the news that I consider worth posting.

40 to 63% increases in heath insurance premiums in Minnesota

Finding out what’s in it: The health insurance premiums for one major Minnesota health insurance company are expected to increase by 40 to 63 percent in 2015.

The insurer started informing brokers Tuesday about rates for individuals if they renew coverage with the company for next year, said Heidi Michaels, an agent with the Dyste Williams agency in Minneapolis. In the half dozen consumer scenarios she’s looked at, Michaels said she’s consistently seeing premium jumps in the neighborhood of 40 percent to 60 percent. Her analysis, however, did not take into account significant discounts that consumers could see by way of federal tax credits, depending on their income. “They’re going to get substantial rate increases,” Michaels said in an interview Wednesday. “I haven’t seen one below 40 percent.”

Letters with these rate increases will go out the end of October, just before election day. (The company has pulled out of the government exchange, which means they don’t have to keep their rates secret until after the election, as required by the Obama administration, the most transparent in history!)

However, these rate increases indicate strongly how high the rate increases will be across the board. They are going to be ungodly high, possibly so high no one will be able to afford them.

Every Democratic senator up for re-election in 2014 voted with the president at least 90 percent of the time in 2013.

A fact to remember when Democrats make believe they oppose Obama in the coming election: Every Democratic senator up for re-election in 2014 voted with the president at least 90 percent of the time in 2013.

It also appears that Democrat support for Obama was higher when they controlled both houses of Congress, “prevailing on almost 97 percent of the votes in the two chambers on which [Obama] took a position in 2009 and almost 86 percent in 2010, when Democrats controlled both House and Senate.”

That was also when the Democrats shoved Obamacare down our throats.

Bankruptcy

It appears that Barack Obama has won another four years in office. Despite what many consider to be one of the weakest and most incompetent presidencies in history, the American people have decided to stick with this man. Even worse, the Democrats look like they will gain seats in the Senate, even though it was the Democratic majority in that Senate that has refused to pass a budget — as required by law — for the last three years. For that dereliction of duty, the American people have decided to reward them with more power.

Overall, it appears that the polls that favored Democrats in their sampling were actually capturing the tone of the country. The public wants big government and a restriction in freedom. 2010 was a fluke, not a trend. I was wrong.

We are stuck with Obamacare. We are stuck with trillion dollar deficits. We are stuck with bankruptcy. I have little hope now for the near future. It will probably take fifty years or more to fix the problems that the past four years and the next four years will create.

This is not even a conservative perspective. No policy can survive, even good leftwing policy, when the government is bankrupt. And with trillion dollar deficits the new normal, we are guaranteed that the government will go bankrupt. And it will take everything else down with it.

Even worse, this willingness of the American public and its intellectual class to ignore this reality, to make believe that trillion dollar deficits don’t matter, suggests an intellectual bankruptcy that is even more appalling. For you can’t fix a problem if you refuse to face it.

We have a choice

A website, ScienceDebate.org, submitted a wide range of questions to Barack Obama and Mitt Romney about their plans for science and technology, and the answers, shown in a side-by-side comparison, are interesting, though in general they demonstrate the ability of politicians to speak for a long time without saying much.

This ability to blather is especially apparent to their answers to the question 12: “What should America’s space exploration and utilization goals be in the 21st century and what steps should the government take to help achieve them?” Neither candidate adds much to what was said in the Republican and Democratic party platforms, making it obvious that neither really cares or knows that much about this subject.

Overall, however, the answers do reveal the basic and fundamental differences between the two candidates, which can be seen in their answers to the very first question about encouraging innovation:
» Read more

It’s the ideology, stupid.

It’s the ideology, stupid.

It’s easy to forget, but Republicans swept the 2010 midterms not through a sweeping indictment of Obama’s economic stewardship, but by hammering Congressional Democrats over their support of the president’s health care law, the stimulus and Democrats’ pursuit of a cap-and-trade energy policy. Running on a firmly ideological agenda, House Republicans picked up 63 House seats – a larger pickup for Republicans than in any election since 1946.

What’s remarkable is that all the fundamental indicators from that historic moment have hardly changed – and in some ways, have worsened for the president. The 2010 midterm NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed 32 percent believing the country was headed in the wrong direction; their latest poll shows that “right track” number exactly the same, with even more believing the country was on the wrong track. Obama’s job approval in the October before the midterm was at 47 percent; it’s only inched upwards to 48 percent in the most recent survey. [emphasis mine]

2010 wasn’t a fluke, it was a trend. And running on the “ideology” of fiscal responsibility, a balanced federal budget, and a smaller federal government does not seem to me to be very ideological. Rather, it is simple common sense, which is why it worked in 2010 and will work again in November.

Romney’s energy policy proposal announced today would redirect science funding towards basic research.

Mitt Romney’s energy policy proposal, announced today, would redirect science funding towards basic research, according to this mostly positive analysis from the generally liberal journal Science.

Personally I’d like to get the federal government out of all this. Let the private market decide where the money should be spent for research. Moreover, we still have that federal debt to pay off. Where will Romney get the money?

1 2 3