The latest Census data for 2023 tell us that the South has accounted for much more population growth than the nation as a whole since the 2020 census. According to an analysis by our chief demographer Wendell Cox, between 2020 and 2023, the South gained 3,857,000 residents, while the rest of the nation lost 407,000.
The big loser was the Northeast, which lost 631,000 people. The Midwest lost 78,000, with a gain of 302,000 in the West, even though California lost 573,000 in population.
So let us get this straight: Biden-Harris would shut down the government in order to prevent a law that would require proof of citizenship for voter registration?
Wouldn't the fact that there are now some 10 million new illegal immigrants in the country since the last presidential election make proof of citizenship for voting even MORE vital as a ballot integrity measure this year?
We've said it before: Our advice to House Speaker Johnson is not to back down here. Americans are solidly behind him on this issue. Illegal immigrant voting is a real danger to democracy.
3) Meanwhile, Some States Are Making It Easier to Vote Without ID
Hot off the presses, the New York Post reports today:
In Wisconsin, no photo ID or proof of citizenship is required to register because photo ID is required when you show up to vote – except when it isn't. There is a growing list of voters who claim to be "indefinitely confined" and are automatically sent absentee ballots. They never have to show ID.
But the Biden administration says there's no reason to worry.
For the first time in almost a century, Americans may soon be able to legally bet on the outcome of elections without resorting to offshore bookmakers or office pools.
Kalshi, a betting site that allows cash wagers on real-world events, won a key victory in federal district court last Friday over the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's ban.
Sports betting is now legal in 38 states.
The CFTC's argument against such betting is that it could "undermine confidence in elections," something that hasn't been seen in Britain and other countries that allow betting on politics.
There is also economic value to allowing betting on elections. Politicians have an enormous impact on our economy. Investors, businesses and financial markets benefit from having a reliable prediction market to help determine the likelihood of political outcomes. Betting markets aren't always right, but they are much better predictors than polls.
Federal District Judge Jia Cobb's ruling against the CFTC was terse and clear: "The CFTC's order exceeded its statutory authority. Kalshi's contracts do not involve unlawful activity or gaming. They involve elections, which are neither."
5) Yes, Germany IS Abandoning the Sham of Green Energy
Germany's government fumed when Trump said in the debate that the Germans have turned against green energy and "we're back to building normal energy plants."
Politico reports that "Germany's Foreign Ministry flipped out and responded with an unusually confrontational post on X."
Richard Grenell, Trump's ambassador to Germany, responded with a rebuttal and accused Berlin of "blatant election interference." Anna Lührman, Germany's Europe minister, fired back: "As democrats, we can no longer allow false statements to stand uncommented."
The irony is that the media coverage of this spat has almost completely ignored the fact that Trump was basically right. The German blog Eugyppius explained:
The Foreign Office tweet was wrong: Germany's "energy system" is not comprised of 50% renewables. That figure applies only to our electricity generation. The German Economics Ministry had to gently clarify this in comments; they did so in German, to spare their Foreign Office colleagues embarrassment before an American audience. Were our Economics Ministry more honest, they could have further explained that Germany did indeed reactivate several coal plants during the energy crisis of 2022, and that since the nuclear phase-out we are hard at work building new natural gas plants as well.
Trump, in other words, was basically correct, but that's a side matter. What I would like to know, is how this shallow preening advances the interests of actual Germans, which is what our Foreign Office is supposed to be doing. The all-too-obvious answer is that it doesn't.
Here are the energy statistics for Germany, which show a continuing heavy reliance on fossil fuels:
Georgetown political scientist, Emma Ashford, drily notes that "it seems like diplomatic malpractice for a country's foreign office to take a side in the (close!) election of their primary security provider."
