Report: One Out of Every Five Registered Ohio Voters Is Bogus

◼ A new report found that one out of every five Ohio voters was probably ineligible to vote. - Gateway Pundit

◼ VOTE FRAUD ALERT: ONE OUT OF FIVE REGISTERED OHIO VOTERS IS BOGUS - John Hayward/Human Events @Doc_o

You might think these astonishing statistics indicate a crisis-level voter registration problem requiring immediate attention, particularly since this is 2012, not 1912, and modern technology gives us extremely potent tools for accurately managing massive amounts of data. But Attorney General Eric Holder disagrees. Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted sent Holder a letter back in February, warning that “common sense says that the odds of voter fraud increase the longer these ineligible voters are allowed to populate our rolls… I simply cannot accept that.” Husted said existing federal regulations “limit Ohio’s ability to remove ineligible names, thereby increasing the chance for voter fraud.”

No one from the Justice Department ever responded. Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, which called Ohio’s voter registration train wreck to Husted’s attention, is now suing him for failing to take action, beyond issuing a “directive” to remove ineligible voters that Judicial Watch describes as “all bark and no bite,” since there is no evidence that anything was actually done.

Judicial Watch has already filed a similar lawsuit against the State of Indiana, and says other states with disturbing levels of ineligible registered voters include Mississippi, Iowa, Missouri, Texas, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Florida, Alabama, California, and Colorado. Florida’s struggle to clean up its rolls, in the face of active hostility from Eric Holder’s Justice Department, has already made headlines.

◼ Voter rolls in Ohio are bloated, experts say - Darrel Rowland/The Columbus Dispatch

Fracking: How risky for us?

◼ Fracking might taint groundwater and pollute the air. California has two additional worries: water consumed and the potential for earthquakes. - LA Times

In a state as environmentally aware as California, it's alarming how little state government has done to learn about or oversee the practice. Two years ago, the state's Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources admitted in a letter that it was "unable to identify" where and how often hydraulic fracturing occurs, how much fresh water is being used for it — though it estimated about 70,000 barrels per well — whether it is being carried out safely or what chemicals are being used.

There have been ongoing concerns in other parts of the country that fracking might taint groundwater and pollute the air. California has two additional worries: how much of the state's scarce water supplies can be spared for fracking, and the potential for earthquakes. The fracturing itself is believed to create little if any seismic danger, but the disposal of the wastewater by injecting it into other wells has been fingered in scientific journals and by the U.S. government as the probable source of earthquakes in areas such as Oklahoma that aren't quake-prone.

◼ California Dems push anti-fracking bills, aim to curb potential oil bonanza - FOX

California is on the verge of a new gold rush. Expanded hydraulic fracturing -- or "fracking" -- at the Monterey Shale formation is sparking estimates that 15 billion barrels of oil could be accessed, along with millions of jobs and huge contributions to the domestic energy supply.

Even the state's green-friendly Democratic governor, Jerry Brown, says "the potential is extraordinary."

But standing in the way is a flurry of anti-fracking bills. At last count, 10 were on the table, all introduced by Democrats seeking tighter controls over the controversial technology.

“No more back-room deals between bureaucrats and liberal activists”

◼ In short, the government agencies — having become politicized and infiltrated by leftwing ideologues — are essentially working in concert with their NGO adversaries to throw fights: the NGOs sue, the government agencies agree to settle, and deals that include regulation favorable to the NGOs become set in bureaucratic stone with no input from the public. - Protein Wisdom

◼ National Editorial: No more back-room deals between bureaucrats and liberal activists - Washington Examiner

Previously in this space, The Washington Examiner described an important new report compiled by an 11-person research team from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce entitled "Sue and Settle: Regulating Behind Closed Doors." The chamber's report identified at least 71 federal court cases since 2009 in which federal agencies -- most often, the Environmental Protection Agency -- made back-room deals with Big Green environmental activist groups like the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians. The activist groups then sued the agency asking the court to order the agency to do what it already agreed to do in the backroom. The group and the agency then told the court that they had settled their "issues" and the court issued a consent decree ratifying the whole rotten procedure.

Sue and settle is anti-democratic because it cuts out of the regulatory process everybody not present in the back-room dickering. Sue and settle is also unconstitutional -- at least in spirit if not fact -- since it supplants elected representatives making law in public with unelected bureaucrats making law behind closed doors. By denying an opportunity for public comment, the process also violates the Administrative Procedures Act that Congress approved in 1946 to insure transparency and accountability in the federal regulatory process. Finally, sue and settle is extraordinarily expensive because agencies typically use it to impose costly regulatory regimens without consideration of less expensive options typically proposed during the preliminary phase of rule-making under the APA.... read the whole thing, at the link

For those interested in the #Monsanto #GMO study

for those interested in the #Monsanto #GMO study, we'll be covering it on @thelead today on CNN, 4 pm ET/1 pm Pacific

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) May 28, 2013

PAPER: Gibson Guitar raids may be another case of Obama administration targeting

◼ The Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative groups puts the federal government’s raids on Gibson Guitar Corp. in a new light, according to a recent Investor’s Business Daily editorial.

“We don’t what is motivating it,” Juszkiewicz said on the Hugh Hewitt Show. “It is…clear to me that there is some terrific motivation because we are not the only company that uses this type of wood. Virtually every other guitar company uses this wood and this wood is used prominently by furniture and architectural industries, and to my knowledge none of them have been shut down or treated in this fashion.”

In August 2012, Gibson settled with the Department of Justice by agreeing to pay a penalty of $300,000 and a $50,000 community service payment to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation....

According to IBD, one of Gibson’s top competitors, C.F. Martin & Co., frequently uses the same “East Indian Rosewood” without any legal repercussions. The editorial also notes that C.F. Martin & Co. CEO gives to Democratic candidates, while Gibson’s CEO is a Republican donor.

Krauthammer on the war on terror: I’m afraid Obama is going to leave us extremely open to attack

◼ Krauthammer says that it is adolescent, naive, and dangerous that Obama wants to declare unilaterally that the war on terror is over. - The Right Scoop