But some Chicken Littles in the environmental panic industry are preventing people from heating their homes and driving up the cost of electricity, while simultaneously denying needed jobs in the worst unemployment in decades. They claim to have found environmental damage in the process to retrieve the gas from shale deposits – called hydraulic fracturing, but the short answer is they’re wrong. The long answer is that they’re really fracking wrong: hydraulic fracturing is safer, cleaner, and cheaper than any of our current alternatives; and that’s just what’s scares these pseudo-scientists.

We must look at the scientific facts before making a policy decision, and the facts about shale gas, when you cut through a great deal of disinformation, are simple. First, it’s less expensive than the fossil fuel alternatives. At $66 per megawatt-hour, natural gas beats the dirtier and more dangerous coal, which costs around $90 per MWh. It even costs less than solar, wind (off and onshore), nuclear, oil and bio-diesel.

And shale gas doesn’t just save money, it saves lives. On average, fifty to sixty coal miners die every year. Every miner must wear artificial breathing apparatus to protect them in case of a disaster, disasters which happen with alarming frequency. Explosions, cave-ins and methane leaks combine to make coal mining the most dangerous job in the United States today.

Fortunately, the same regions rich in coal are also rich in shale gas, courtesy of the Marcellus Shale formation. Coal doesn’t only mean disaster for our miners, but for air we breathe. Particulate matter from coal causes asthma, black lung disease and lung cancer.  We need to replace coal yesterday, but these so-called environmentalists are shooting themselves, and our planet, in the foot – and maybe the face.

But these activists will tell you that fracking contaminates your water. This is false. Hydraulic fracturing takes place below aquifers, thousands of feet below impenetrable, nonporous rock. Nothing used in fracking ends up in your drinking water. What about those pictures the movie directors show you, the ones where you can burn the water from the tap? If any natural gas well, using fracked or unfracked gas, is made without steel and cement casing, the well can leak natural gas. A properly made well will not leak. Put simply – there is no difference between a safe gas well using shale gas or conventional natural gas. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection report from 2010 stated quite clearly that, according to the Pennsylvania Bureau of Watershed Management, “no groundwater pollution or disruption of underground sources of drinking water have been attributed to hydraulic fracturing of deep gas formations.” That’s right – none.

Activists tell you that greenhouse gasses are worse in natural gas, and they’ll give you a very faulty study led by Cornell ecologist (not a climatologist) saying that greenhouse effects of natural gasses are worse than coal. In fact, when the Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory checked this ecologist’s numbers, they found that natural gas was “50 percent lower than average coal.” And that’s just the beginning of the faults with this particular study, which overestimated natural gas leakage by 10-, and sometimes 20-fold.

So why are they dissembling? Why are they hiding the numbers and the facts? Because their jobs are in danger. These people have all their time and money invested in the future of renewable energy, a future they believe will be accelerated if fuel prices are kept unnaturally high. While the Obama administration wastes money on Solyndras and other pipe dreams, people can’t afford to heat their homes or turn on the lights. I believe in the future of renewable energy, but that future can’t be built on lies, or on the frozen corpses of our nation’s poor.

The financial crisis and ensuing recession hit the Northeast particularly hard, and the hydraulic fracturing process has the potential to bring clean, inexpensive energy to millions of Americans who need it. And it can also bring jobs – the Democratic White House, no stranger to the environmental lobby, estimates that fracking could bring more than half a million jobs over the next decade. The next time you see a sign that reads “No Fracking,” translate into English – “No Jobs, No Heat, No Power – and No Future”

The answer is not in direct popular election, which puts a premium on ACORN- style voter fraud and vote buying – staples of big city Democrat machines. I propose we scrap the Electoral College and preserve the electoral count and apportion it based on the popular vote in each state.

The proponents of a constitutional amendment that would mandate a direct popular election would hand our elections over to union-funded operatives who engage in voter fraud and vote stealing. Andrew Breitbart has accurately highlighted the incredible electoral frauds perpetrated by ACORN and I have written extensively about the shady and illegal voter fraud activities of New York’s left-wing Working Families Party (WFP).

Well-meaning reformers who propose a direct popular election will inadvertently put a premium on voter fraud and corruption. There is a better way: the Stone Electoral College Reform Plan which Congress could put on the ballot with a two-thirds vote. Under my electoral reform proposal, each state is first apportioned two votes, one for each Senator – the Federal principle of balancing the rights of big and small states – and then one vote each for each House member, reflecting population size and majority rule. Each state’s total number is divided proportionally in the tally based on percent of the votes received by each candidate.

To illustrate my proposal, if you preserve the electoral vote as a counting device, in a state with ten electoral votes, eight would represent the Congressmen (that is, population) and two would represent the Senators (that is, the federal principle). If the Republicans, for example, received 30 percent of the popular vote in a presidential election, they would get three out of the state’s ten electoral votes and the Democrats would get seven. Under the present system, the Democrats would get 10 – winner take all.

My plan favors neither party and protects the interests of big and small states alike. It is simple and fair and protects the rights of the the minority. And history proves it is necessary.

In 1948, John Dewey carried New York over Harry Truman – 46 to 45 percent – with lefty Henry Wallace draining “Give ‘em Hell” Harry, but Dewey got all 47 Electoral College votes. Under the current system, electors who are political hacks not even bound by law to vote for the candidate the voters selected. In 1960, one elector from Virginia voted for segregationist Senator Harry F. Byrd Sr. rather than vote for Nixon or Kennedy. The current system could lead to more mischief.

If no candidate earns a majority in our current system, the decision is thrown to the House where each state has one vote. Again they are not bound to vote for any candidate. The wheeling, dealing and inside politics could select a President with no need for a popular election majority. The horse- trading to swing the votes within each big or small state would be fierce, and small states have the same vote as big states.

The likely result – scandal and deadlock – is not possible under my plan. With all votes being apportioned and reflected, the entire popular vote will be reflected and someone will earn a majority. A Congressional scandal can be avoided.

The Electoral College was actually a gathering (usually at the state capitol building and usually in January) of so-called presidential electors – persons chosen in the November election. At the Electoral College meeting, these electors are supposed to vote precisely as the people have voted but they are not legally bound to do so. On occasion, some of them cast votes contrary to their voters’ choice.

Several Republican electors from Alaska voted for the Libertarian candidate for President rather than Richard Nixon in 1972. My proposal would eliminate anti-voter shenanigans by rogue electors and insure the will of the people was reflected in the awarding of electoral votes

The Stone Plan for a constitutional amendment to reform the electoral system exactly as I have outlined actually passed the US Senate, when sponsored by the redoubtable Senator Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., by an amazing two-thirds vote of 64 to 23 in 1950. It failed in the US House.

My proposal could garner the votes from Senators and Congressmen in small states who are likewise disadvantaged under a strict popular vote system. Under our current system, no candidate for President will travel to Vermont, Montana or Rhode Island unless it’s for money.

Under the Stone Plan, no state could have less than three electoral votes and even these could be apportioned.

Electoral College reform as I have outlined it is fair and disadvantages no group or party in our presidential elections. The time for Electoral College reform is now.

Trump is a middle class phenomena. Middle aged, middle income, middle class voters are Trump’s core. Hispanic voters give him high favorable ratings as do African Americans and poor whites. The higher your level of education the more likely you are to loath Trump. If you are self-made you are 70% more likely to like Trump than if you have inherited money. Small businessmen like Trump, Wall Street Gekkos do not. The Apprentice has enhanced his standing because his short segments show him being cool, tough and decisive, things voters are looking for after the vacillation of Barrack Obama.

Trump appeals to the strivers. Trump lives as they would live if they were rich. Trump’s over the top lifestyle of the biggest and the best appeals to these voters. The Ivy League educated? Not so much. Old Money? Forget it. Trump appeals to the Perot and Buchanan voter suspicious of both parties. The Tea Party is a natural launching pad for Trump.

Now the Club for Growth is bashing Trump for positions he took ten years ago under far different circumstances. Trump favored a tax on the super-rich to kill the deficit. He was willing to pay himself. He is opposed to the idea today. Hard to imagine voters seeking consistency will switch to Mitt Romney who used to be a pro-abortion, pro gay marriage liberal.

Political operatives who come to work for Trump will soon realize he doesn’t need words put in his mouth and has a very clear sense of what he wants to say and do. Trump is soaring in the polls now because he is following his own populist instincts and expressing himself in street language the average person can understand.

It takes stature, money, energy and discipline to be elected President. Trump has the stature and the money, so far he has demonstrated the energy but whether he has the discipline to stay on his core themes and to parry the attacks on him without getting personal remains to be seen. Much of this furor is about the Trump brand. At last weekends Tea Party Tax rally in Boca Raton Trump asked his host if he should take off his trademark pastel tie for his speech. “No,” he was told, “you gotta look like you look on TV.”

Bypassing public finance, Trump can leverage his wealth to outspend his opponents in the early states, gaining a significant strategic advantage. Sadly, Trump advisor Michael Cohen, a vice president of the Trump organization, doesn’t seem to understand this. City Hall newspaper recently reported “Cohen said that Trump would raise money from average citizens, rather than just funnel his own money into a campaign.”He wants citizens in the country to have skin in the game,” he said.

While there is little doubt that Trump could raise maximum $2,600 contributions from many of his wealthy friends and supporters, it is truly questionable how many low-dollar donors he could muster. Who gives money to a billionaire?

To the extent that Trump’s wealthy friends wish to support him, they would be best off putting their money into a 527 organization, where they can give without limitation, rather than donating the lousy $2,600 they are limited to if they donate to an official Trump For President organization.

The spending limits on each state are set by the Federal Election Commission based on a formula. Under all circumstances, these limits are fundamentally inadequate, given the advertising and communication costs in each state, causing candidates to “cheat” by, for example, crossing the New Hampshire state border to sleep in Massachusetts and return to the Granite State in the morning so as not to incur the lodging costs for the candidate and his entourage in the calculation of the New Hampshire state spending limit.

By forgoing public finance and completely funding his own campaign, Trump would not have to play these games. He could sink $3 million into Iowa and $5 million into New Hampshire to prevail in those contests. Early victories mean he could spend far less than the state limits in the states that choose their delegates later in the process after his opponents have dropped out.

Trump could still write an unlimited check to his own campaign if he chooses not to bypass public finance and matching funds, but would be giving up the single most significant advantage his mega-wealth affords him; the ability to outspend Mitt Romney and the rest of the field in the early contests, where a Trump candidacy must flourish or die.

Trump himself told ABC News he could spend up to $600 million of his own money if he runs. I’ve made it clear that I neither represent or speak for Trump, but I hope he runs and believe his ability to self-fund a campaign without federal matching funds and outspend his opponents in the early primaries and caucuses is one of the keys to victory.

As a veteran of eight National Presidential campaigns I have studied this process for a long time. The Networks have created TWO contests – one in 2011 and another in 2012. This takes national focus off current government efforts to solve the nations problems. It’s a disservice to the voters and will de-value the early state caucuses and primaries.

Putting that aside, the process must be played as it is – and the new schedule could be a lay-up for a media savvy candidate like Donald J. Trump. No one understands the power of television like Trump. Millions tune in the Apprentice to see the most successful and best known businessman in America. Trump’s sharp criticism of trade policy with China, OPEC and the war in Afghanistan could find a large, even commanding segment in the GOP.

Trump showed at the CPAC gathering that his star quality plus his pro-gun, pro-life views combined with his pro-business stance can be a winner in the GOP. Trump literally has nothing to lose – and everything to gain by entering the 2011 debates. While Trump says he will decide if he is running by June, I would advise him to wait until the Florida GOP straw-poll in October to decide. After all, Trump doesn’t require time to build his name ID.

The first May debate is at the blue-chip Ronald Reagan Presidential Library May 2 and will be broadcast by MSNBC, CNBC and Telemundo. A second May debate will be held in South Carolina broadcast by Fox on May 5. It is not clear how many formally announced candidates there will be by then and how prospective candidates like Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump will be handled. Mitt Romney, doggedly following the George H.W. Bush playbook, will be in by then and will have rounded up everybody with three names in the GOP .

The New Hampshire Fox WMUR debate is on June 7th. That’s right, it’s June 2011 we’re talking about. Votes won’t be cast in the Granite state until a full seven month later. The Ames Iowa debate preceding by the Ames Iowa Straw Poll is scheduled for August 11 – almost five months before the actual Iowa Caucuses. Florida follows with it’s Presidency VI straw poll which is a shakedown for Sunshine State Republicans to line their party coffers (and in the case of indicted Former State GOP Chair Jim Greer’s case in 2008, his own pockets) in September.

There can be little doubt that more straw-poll and debates will be sprinkled in. What this does is create a faux race for nomination which precede the real legal nomination. It takes public interest out of the real nomination process by winnowing out losers in 2011 without ever counting real votes. Three boring debate performances and your money and credibility will dry up. A dark horse like Trump could run the tables in the debates and lead in the polls by years end, making a late formal entry. News events will still dominate the days before the Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina and Florida primaries.

Will whoever wins 2011 win 2012? Will 2011 and it’s high profile debates before voters are focused or interested just narrow the Field? Candidates like Romney and Giuliani could be shop worn by 2012, Pawlenty and Daniels will have fizzled by then and Haley Barbour will have kept his powder dry. Real Estate Magnate Donald Trump could dominate 2011 debates and emerge as a real candidate.

AP reported last week -

“TROY, N.Y. — A Troy Democratic councilman in Troy and the Democratic elections commissioner for Rensselaer County face charges that they forged absentee ballots in a Working Families Party primary in 2009. A county grand jury has accused Councilman Michael LoPorto and Commissioner Edward G. McDonough of participating in a scheme in which dozens of bogus absentee ballots were submitted in the names of unsuspecting Troy residents.LoPorto and McDonough were arraigned Friday and are now free on bail. Special Prosecutor Trey Smith began investigating after the Times Union, of Albany, interviewed a number of people who were surprised to learn that their names had appeared on ballot applications.”

The two men pleaded not guilty Friday to a combined 116 felony counts alleging they falsified dozens of  absentee ballots.  The ballots not only involve clearly forged signatures, but also, falsifying excuses for not being present to vote  and registering individuals who no longer live in the area. In some cases a false promise of a trip to a Las Vegas casino was used as an inducement to fill out absentee applications. WFP leaders and their Democratic allies have no qualms about forging absentees to keep control of their political arm.

The WFP has been proven to be nothing more than a front for ACORN and its left-ward agenda.

WFP is used by ACORN as a sledge hammer to force Democrats to toe the Union line .  WFP was founded by key members of ACORN, and shares many of its political strategies.The WFP has listed ACORN as an affiliate program directly on their Web site.

Karen Scharff, co-chair of the Capital District WFP is a key link between ACORN and their WFP front. Scharff was instrumental in using WFP money in the Democratic primary to elect Albany County District Attoney David Soares, who has jurisdiction over the activities of the WFP and ACORN. When this expenditure was challenged in court as illegal, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer declined to defend the state law prohibiting cross party funding in party primaries. Spitzer subsequently got the early WFP endorsement for Governor and Soares declined to prosecute Spitzer in the Troopergate matter in which Spitzer used state resources to spy on Senate Republican leaders.

Former ACORN boss Bertha Lewis also serves as co-chair for the WFP. ACORN associate Dan Cantor  is another key link. Cantor also serves as Executive Director of the WFP. Cantor is the great great grandson of Vaudeville and radio star Eddie Cantor. The New York Times  reported that Patrick Gaspard, the  former White House political director, worked with ACORN in New York to set up the Working Families political party and sat on the party’s board. Gaspard was bounced as White House political director after the disasterous mid-term elelctions but moved over to serve as executive director of  the Democratic National Committee’s day-to-day operations .Gaspard will oversee Organizing for America, a project of the Democrats to rally support for the Obama agenda.

If you have any doubt that ACORN and it’s political party will engage in voter fraud to keep Obama in the White House you can stop wondering.

The Times also speaks of Lugar’s “affection” for Ronald Reagan which wasn’t reflected in his Chairmanship of Senator Howard Baker’s campaign for President in 1980. While there is no doubt that Lugar is a decent man and dedicated public servant, thirty years in the Senate is enough. The election of Dan Coats to the Senate from Indiana is proof the state can sustain the election of a real conservative.

Lugar is defying his party on an earmark ban, a bill that would create a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants, a military spending authorization bill and an arms control treaty with Russia, the Times noted on Sunday. He even declined to sign a brief supporting state lawsuits against President health care law.

Talk of a challenge from Governor Mitch Daniels are false.

Although a solid conservative, Daniels is a former Lugar Administrative Assistant and protege. Clearly it is time for Senator Lugar to face a Republican Primary. Lugar says he welcomes such a challenge. Let the people decide.