Here is a political contradiction worth examining. Pew Research Center reports that 83% of Americans support requiring government-issued photo identification to vote, including 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats. Support also exceeds 70% among White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian adults. Yet Democrats oppose voter identification.

The public is clearer about the basic principle of identification than Washington. That raises a legitimate question: Why has a safeguard supported across party and racial lines become such a contentious political battlefield? Americans routinely establish their identities for important transactions. Election integrity deserves equally serious consideration. But not to the Democratic Party.

Then comes the federal judiciary. On October 1, U.S. District Judge David Leibowitz, appointed by President Biden, dismissed charges against a Jamaican national accused of illegally voting in Florida’s 2020 election. He ruled that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in criminalizing noncitizen voting under the statute involved.

The Justice Department appealed. The ruling applies to that defendant, and Florida’s prohibition on noncitizen voting remains enforceable under state law. Nevertheless, the decision raises a consequential issue: If Congress cannot enforce this particular federal prohibition, what becomes of national election safeguards?

Meanwhile, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) predicted in September that Trump voters would either vote Democratic in the midterms or stay home. Pew’s October polling found Democrats leading Republicans 44% to 36% among registered voters, with Democratic voters showing greater engagement. Schiff’s comments arrive amid continuing disputes over mail-in ballots, identification requirements, and voter-roll verification. Democrats generally support broader mail voting, while Republicans raise concerns about ballot security.

Pew found 58% of Americans support allowing anyone to vote by mail. These competing preferences deserve examination on their merits. Polling measures public sentiment, while actual election misconduct requires documented evidence. Confusing the two only deepens public distrust.

A substantial bipartisan majority supports voter identification, yet Democratic Party leaders oppose it. A federal judge questions Congress’s authority to criminalize noncitizen voting. Politicians debate election security while citizens struggle to separate legitimate concerns from partisan accusations. The solution requires clear eligibility standards, accessible identification, reliable ballot verification, and consistent enforcement. Every lawful vote deserves protection, and every unlawful ballot deserves scrutiny.

Proverbs 11:1 says, “Dishonest scales are an abomination to the LORD, But a just weight is His delight.”

The principle applies to elections as surely as commerce. Public confidence grows when the rules are transparent, the count is accurate, and accountability is real. Undermining this is, say it with me, Stupidocrisy.

Sources

Pew Research Center, August 22, 2025, voting policies and voter ID
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/08/22/majority-of-americans-continue-to-back-expanded-early-voting-voting-by-mail-voter-id/

Gallup, October 2024, election-law polling
https://news.gallup.com/file/poll/652532/2024_10_23_Election%20Laws%20Topline%20and%20Tabs.pdf

Breitbart, October 2, 2026, federal court ruling
https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2026/10/02/biden-judge-claims-congress-cant-stop-noncitizens-from-voting/

CBS News, October 2, 2026, ruling and Justice Department appeal
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-federal-law-banning-noncitizen-voting-unconstitutional/

Breitbart, September 17, 2026, Schiff’s midterm comments
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2026/09/17/schiff-in-midterms-trump-voters-will-vote-democratic-or-not-vote-at-all/

Pew Research Center, October 8, 2026, midterm polling
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2026/10/08/midterm-vote-preferences-by-race-and-ethnicity-age-and-other-demographics/

You may never buy a gallon of diesel, but you are paying for it every day. The food in your refrigerator, packages at your door, lumber at the hardware store, and countless other goods move on trucks, trains, and equipment powered by diesel. Farmers burn it planting and harvesting. Truckers burn it hauling. Railroads burn it moving freight across the country.

When diesel soars above $6 a gallon, those costs travel through the supply chain to you. Yet while Americans are getting hammered by record diesel prices, the United States is exporting roughly 1.3 million barrels of diesel a day, more than 20% above last year. Think about that for a moment.

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) says American distillate inventories, which include diesel, have fallen below their five-year range while net exports have remained near or above five-year highs since February. Inventories are forecast to fall below 100 million barrels and remain unusually low through the end of 2026 and much of 2027.

Global disruptions in Russia, the Middle East and China have reduced diesel supplies, driving international prices higher and making American diesel increasingly attractive overseas. EIA says those higher global prices incentivize US exports and acknowledges that low domestic inventories contribute to higher American diesel prices. We are producing diesel at near-record levels, yet our own supply remains dangerously tight.

President Donald Trump recently raised the possibility of restricting diesel exports, saying, “I’ve said let’s not send out the diesel. We make a lot of diesel.” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the administration was examining whether a full or partial restriction could work.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright cautions that an outright ban could backfire because refineries produce gasoline, diesel and jet fuel together. Cutting off export markets could eventually force refiners to reduce production, tightening supplies of other fuels and raising their prices. That makes a blanket ban risky, but it doesn’t erase the legitimate question: With American diesel inventories historically low and prices historically high, should more American-produced diesel remain available to Americans? Maybe they should charge Americans less and importers a lot more.

Diesel is the bloodstream of the American supply chain. Its cost is baked into farming, food, construction, manufacturing, shipping, and ultimately the family budget. Exporting diesel didn’t create this entire crisis. Wars, refinery disruptions, crude oil prices, and tight worldwide supplies all contribute. But exporting increasing quantities while American inventories are extraordinarily low adds pressure to an already painful situation. Perhaps the answer lies in increasing refining capacity, rebuilding inventories, and moderating exports when domestic supplies become dangerously tight.

Proverbs 27:23 says, “Be diligent to know the state of your flocks, And attend to your herds.”

Good stewardship requires knowing what you have, what you need, and taking care of home first.

Sources

U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook, U.S. Petroleum Products
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/petro_prod.php

U.S. Energy Information Administration, “What goes into diesel prices?”
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=68164

Reuters, “Energy Watch: Diesel dilemma,” Sept. 24, 2026
https://www.reuters.com/commentary/reuters-open-interest/energy-watch-diesel-dilemma-2026-09-24/

Reuters, “Global diesel shortage likely to last into 2027,” Sept. 21, 2026
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/global-diesel-shortage-likely-last-into-2027-storage-tanks-drain-2026-09-21/

Reuters, “Trump says he backs the idea of a ban on diesel exports,” Sept. 22, 2026
Reuters report

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, “Moving Goods in the United States”
https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/bcyt-rqmu