Ted Cruz Calls Out Democrats’ ‘Corrupt Politicians Act’ for the Horror It Is

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay

A Senate committee took up debate on the Democrats’ sweeping voting reform package on Tuesday. Best known as H.R.1, the name of the bill is the “For the People Act.” It should really be called the “For the Democrats Act” because if this bill were to become law, America would be governed by one-party rule for generations to come. The House passed H.R. 1 in early March.

H.R. 1 represents the Biden Administration’s biggest power grab yet. This bill is unpopular across the board with the GOP.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican, denounced the bill, which some call the “Corrupt Politicians Act,” in no uncertain terms on Tuesday.

In the video below, Cruz tells his colleagues this bill is “profoundly dangerous.”

“The reason it suppresses millions of votes is by allowing millions of people to vote illegally, and that is the intended effect and that would be the actual effect of this bill. It dilutes the legal votes of American citizens.”

Senator Schumer spoke of “the stench of oppression when Democrats drafted Jim Crow the last time. Well, the stench of oppression is here again. Sen. Schumer said ‘the eyes of history are on you.’ The eyes of history are on you as well, and let me point out something. It was just a few years ago that the Republicans had control of the White House, the Senate and the House. We didn’t do this. We didn’t try to change the election rules so that Democrats could never be elected. We didn’t engage in the corruption to say, ‘We’re gonna rig the game.’ So, if the voters decide to throw the bums out, the voters don’t get to do that, because we’re going to put our thumb on the scale so that only our party wins. To my knowledge, not a single Republican suggested doing that.

“This bill doesn’t protect voting rights. It steals voting rights from the American people.”

Republican strategist Karl Rove joined Fox News’ Bill Hemmer on Tuesday to give a summary of just how bad this bill would be for the party. He said “it federalizes elections and has a bunch of bad things in it.”

The first point is that taxpayers would be paying for congressional campaigns. The federal government will match contributions by a multiple of six. Rove said, for example, “if you gave a $200 contribution,” the government (with taxpayer dollars) would contribute up to $1,200.

“No voter ID laws. Every state voter ID law in the country is wiped out.”

It makes it difficult to keep accurate voter registration lists. “States can’t check people at the polls against the registration lists. People can show up and change their name and their address at the polls and that’s not set aside as a provisional ballot to be further checked. It’s thrown into the big batch. You can’t check with other states. You can’t remove people from the voter list even if they’ve not voted, you’ve sent them a postcard, and the postcard has come back and says that person no longer lives at the address. But you have to leave them on the rolls,” Rove explained.

“Everyone gets a ballot mailed to them. And no ID, no notary, no witnesses,” he noted. “They mail them out and anybody can fill them out and send them back in.”

“It bans outside observers at the polls. The only people who can challenge a voter or somebody who shows up at the polls is an election official, not an observer representing either the Democrat or Republican parties.

Please click here to continue reading article.

 

Richard Edward in the Garden of Politics

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Mabel Amber, who will one day from Pixabay

I am on my second cup of coffee and I still can’t face the day (sorry Mr. Lightfoot). Why? I am scheduled to witness, firsthand, the premier of manual labor, a play I would rather not attend. Since the fourth First Lady’s acquisition of an unusually large garden plot, the task of clean-up and planting preparation has been hanging over my head. I run through my mental checklist before leaving for the plot …

Irrigation? Check. Not designed and installed yet, but those soaker hoses and that timer you bought yesterday should work. At least there is a hose bib with running water.

Planter beds? Check. Not installed yet, but those raised bed kits that you bought yesterday shouldn’t take too much effort to assemble and fill with steer poop.

Crop cage? Check. Framework installed and in relatively good shape, except for all those places where the chicken wire overlaps and needs to be secured.  Those zip ties and wire clips you purchased should come in handy.

Oh well, glance at the watch, it’s not quite yet gotten to be 100° before noon, so it could be worse.

As I run through my checklist, I notice that my cat awakens from her nocturnal slumber, perched upon the counter-height chair, visions of rogue mice beginning to fade from her cat brain. She glances my direction, slow blinks, jumps from her perch and immediately begins her morning routine of cat yoga….assuming her favorite position of downward feline.

Mr. Narrator (interrupts): “Richard Edward, it’s not getting any cooler outside. Quit stalling, get your tools together and get on with the garden site prep.”

Richard Edward: “You’re right Mr. Narrator. I’ve been putting this off. There really is so much work to be done, even before the actual work of planting and harvesting, that the reward of organic vegetables appears diminished. Anyway, I’ll grab the rakes and hoes and meet you and the fourth first at the car.”

As I step into my garage, the lizard portion of my cortex lights up. Rakes and hoes, why does that seem so familiar? Then I realize that the ‘rakes and hoes’ tools that I seek now are in reality, those very political actors that I loathe so much. Now I understand why I don’t want to do this; these tools of the garden are simply representations; its really about the bogeymen of my political awareness — professional politicians.

Mr. Narrator (interrupts again): “Richard Edward, stop! Not all politicians are rakes and hoes. While I do see some similarities with the current administration’s leadership, many of those political actors are not solely consigned to behave like the ‘lower tools’ in life’s garden. Rakes and hoes may be basic tools, but it doesn’t mean that they are base. There are some honest folks in Washington.”

I hate when Mr. Narrator makes word play.

Richard Edward: “Ok, I’ll play your garden word game. You just might be correct. But even so, in the garden that is D.C., there really are tools, rakes, hoes and more than a few weeds that need to be removed.”

“Rakes? I’d nominate Slick Willy, Hunter Biden and yes, even Joey Robinette in his younger days. John Kennedy was also reputed to be something of a rake, no?”

“Hoes? Well, there are far too many to mention in gentlemanly conversation, but how many pols have you seen that will do anything for a (lobbyist) buck? While its not the world’s oldest profession (navigators will tell you that someone first had to lead the customer to find them), it appears that many legislators and those in the administration have decided that selling one’s integrity is a profitable enterprise. I mean, how many folks on the CDC staff are eligible for royalties from drug patents?”

“Tools? The list is long Mr. Narrator. Crazy Nancy Pelosi, Fang Fang Swalwell, ‘Guam” Johnson and that shifty, bug-eyed dude from CA who always has the ‘goods’ on everyone but just never delivers, Mitt Romney and then any Democrat member of any oversight committee. So many tools they could open a big box garden store. C’mon man, name one Democratic legislator who is smarter than a hand trowel?”

“Weeds? Don’t get me started! Toxic, strangling the life out of legitimate political endeavors. … The weeds could be the worst of the bunch in the political garden; spreading poison amongst the legitimate programs that are trying to bear fruit. Weeds compete with good crops for water, soil, sunlight, nourishment and yet they produce nothing. (Looking at you AOC, Bernie Sanders, Auntie Maxine, Ilhan Omar.)”

Mr. Narrator: “Okay, Richard Edward, enough.  You’ve made your point. We obviously need a new master gardener in D.C.”

Richard Edward: “Yes, Mr. Narrator, I knew in my knower that you’d see my point of view. Good gardeners help create life-sustaining environments, tend and care for both seedlings and mature plants, ensure access to water and food, make sure every plant in their garden has its own space and place to grow, and they keep the weeds from choking the good plants.”

“Good legislators do kind of the same things for their constituents. They help create lawful and peaceful environments, promote legislation and administrative programs that benefit the young and the old, help their constituents stay employed, stay in school and ensure that they have access to programs that are designed to promote personal and/or professional growth. As always, the good ones try to keep the weeds from showing up in their districts.

If you think about who represents you, maybe its time to pull a few weeds and if you have to, hire a new gardener.”

“If you think that good gardeners might make good legislators, please let Richard Edward and Mr. Narrator know why you think so. … And if you have one, happy gardening!

— Richard Edward Tracy

Sens. Duckworth, Hirono Pledged to Vote ONLY for Minority or LGBTQ Nominees; Both Back Down After ‘Productive Conversation’ with White House

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Tumisu from Pixabay

Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth’s attempt to pressure the White House into nominating only minority or LGBTQ candidates for top posts in the administration appears to have gone the way of the record player.

On Tuesday, the Democrat told reporters, “I am a no vote on the floor, on all non-diversity nominees. You know, I will vote for racial minorities and I will vote for LGBTQ, but anybody else I’m not voting for.”

“I am not going to be voting for any nominee from the White House, other than diversity nominees, probably a no on everyone until they figure this out. Hopefully they figure it out, but I’m a no on everything other than the diversity candidates,” Duckworth insisted.

According to Roll Call, she added that “she informed the White House of her decision Tuesday morning.”

Fellow Democrat, Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, quickly threw her support behind Duckworth. Hirono said, “I’m joining her in that, which means that we would like to have a commitment from the White House that there’ll be more diversity representation in the Cabinet, and in senior White House positions. And until that happens, I will join her in voting no on non-diversity nominees. We’re not just calling for AAPIs. This is not about pitting one diversity group against another. So I’m happy to vote for a Hispanic, a Black person, an LGBTQ person, an AAPI person. I’d just like to see more diversity represented.”

Both Duckworth and Hirono are Asian Americans.

Considering the slim majority Democrats hold in the Senate, this was a worrisome development. So far, Biden’s nominees have received significant support from Republican senators. However, “no” votes from Duckworth and Hirono could present a problem in a close vote.

Majority Whip and fellow Illinois Democrat Richard J. Durbin told Roll Call, “In a 50-50 Senate, every senator has the power to complicate.”

Call me crazy, but do these senators understand that choosing a nominee based on the color of their skin is the very definition of racism?

Imagine if two Republican senators refused to consider voting for a non-white nominee or an LGBTQ candidate. There would be outrage, the likes of which we’ve never seen before. The calls for their immediate resignation would be deafening.

It’s not only wrong because it’s racist, but their constituents elected them to make decisions on their behalf. Rather than carefully weighing a nominee’s experience and qualifications to select the most suitable individual for a job, these women planned to base their votes on the superficial, emotional factors of race and/or sexual orientation. It wouldn’t matter to them if an individual was unqualified for a job, as long as they were black and gay.

This represents a dereliction of duty.

Apparently, their attempt to hold the Biden Administration hostage didn’t last too long.

By Tuesday night, following “productive conversations with the White House,” both senators had backed off of their incredibly ignorant, sanctimonious and just plain racist positions.

Judge Considers Unsealing Absentee Ballots In Fulton County, GA Following Credible Allegations of Fraud

Advertisements

In the age of technology, it’s almost impossible to get away with a crime. There are 100 ways to get caught and a criminal may think of 99 of them. But somewhere in the paper or the digital trail, resides the one item that was overlooked. And a diligent, persistent investigator will find it.

In the wake of the 2020 presidential election, over 1,000 poll watchers in swing states signed sworn affidavits stating they had witnessed irregularities on and in the days immediately following Nov. 3.

One of the complainants, Garland Favorito, is the co-founder of the Voters Organized for Trusted Election Results in Georgia, a conservative government watchdog group.

RealClearInvestigations‘ Paul Sperry recounted Favorito’s story. “A curious thing happened as Fulton County, Ga., election officials counted mail-in ballots at Atlanta’s State Farm Arena in the days after the election. In the early hours of Nov. 5, a surge of some 20,000 mail-in votes suddenly appeared for Joe Biden, while approximately 1,000 votes for President Trump mysteriously disappeared from his own totals in the critical swing state.”

Favorito observed this “suspicious shift in votes while monitoring the interim election results on the Georgia secretary of state website.”

In the affidavit Favorito had filed with the secretary of state’s office, he wrote, “I concluded from looking at these results that this was an irregularity, since there was no obvious reason for President Trump’s totals to have decreased while former Vice President Biden’s totals increased dramatically.”

Favorito’s claims, along with virtually all of the other allegations were quickly dismissed by the Georgia Secretary of State’s office.

Refusing to be rejected so easily, he filed a lawsuit in Fulton County Superior Court. At a court hearing held on Monday, Henry County Judge Brian Amero appeared to take his case seriously.

According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Amero may unseal absentee ballots in Fulton County so a government watchdog [Favorito’s group] can investigate allegations of voting fraud in the November election.”

Amero said he’s “inclined to order the ballots to be unsealed and reviewed by experts hired by Favorito.” The ballots are currently under seal in the Fulton County Superior Court Clerk’s Office.

AJC reported:

At Monday’s hearing, Amero said he’s willing to order the absentee ballots to be unsealed if he’s assured their security will not be compromised. He requested a detailed plan, including who would review the ballots, how they would analyze them and how they would secure them.

The judge also discussed a protective order that would prohibit Favorito’s experts from disclosing their work without permission from the court. And he plans to appoint a special master — perhaps a retired superior court judge — to oversee the analysis. If Amero allows it, the review of ballots could begin in late April.

“I can’t sign an order until such time as I’m satisfied that the manner and method (of review) proposed by the petitioners is reasonable,” the judge said.

“We want to do this in such a way that dispels rumors and disinformation and sheds light,” Amero said at the hearing. “The devil’s in the details.”

Favorito is seeking to review absentee ballots in Fulton County. He says county workers fabricated ballots and counted some ballots multiple times on election night. As evidence, his lawsuit cites video of the counting, as well as sworn statements from people who were present.

The observers were suspicious of ballots that were printed on a different stock of paper than regular ballots, appeared to have been printed instead of marked by ink in a voter’s hand or were not creased, indicating they had not been placed in an absentee ballot envelope and mailed.

Naturally, state and county election officials dispute Favorito’s allegations. According to the AJC, these officials have explained that many ballots had been damaged and had to be duplicated before their scanners would process them. The scanners sometimes jam and when that happens, officials said, all of the ballots from a particular batch must be rescanned.

AJC quotes Gabriel Sterling, chief operating officer for the secretary of state’s office, who declared that “the witness statements in the lawsuits are wrong.”

Sterling told a reporter last week that, “It’s not people who are lying, they don’t understand what they’re saying.”

Of course.

Obviously, none of us know what happened with the ballots. But there seems to be too much smoke here for there to be no fire. And taking the Georgia election officials at their word is akin to taking the word of your teenager who swears he didn’t have a party when you were away, even though several bags of beer bottles were found and there’s a huge cigarette burn in the carpet.

Except that the stakes are exponentially greater. In fact, they have already changed the course of America’s future.

The majority of Trump voters, including myself, believe that fraud occurred in the election. We need to pursue each and every one of the allegations made in the sworn affidavits.

I am convinced that somewhere there exists that one detail that was overlooked. We need to find it.

Victor Davis Hanson: ‘We have become an absurd society obsessed with race’

Advertisements

Victor Davis Hanson is a Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He is a military historian, a columnist, a former classics professor, and one of the smartest conservative commentators ever.

In his latest column at American Greatness, he asks if America is (hopefully, finally) hitting woke herd immunity as two recent polls suggest. He begins:

Two recent polls suggest wokism is beginning to recede on a variety of fronts, from less trust in Black Lives Matter and more confidence in the police, to suspicion that the Capitol “insurrection” account is being used to unfairly suppress political expression while Antifa, increasingly, is seen as a terrorist organization whose violence has been ignored improperly by authorities.

There are tens of millions of Americans who either have been stung, or turned off by McCarthyite wokeness (and thus have anti-wokeness antibodies). More have been vaccinated from its latest virulent strains by their own values of judging people as individuals, not as racial or gender collectives. So lots of Americans have developed peremptory defenses against it. The result is that daily there are ever-fewer who are susceptible to the woke pandemic. And it will thus begin to fade out—even as the virus desperately seeks to mutate and go after more institutions.

Peak wokeness is nearing also because if it continued in its present incarnation, then the United States as we know it would cease to exist—in the sense that 1692-93 Salem or 1793-94 Paris could not have continued apace without destroying society. Woke leftism exists to destroy and tear down, not to unite and build. It is not designed to play down and heal racial differences, but to accentuate and capitalize on them.

Dr. Hanson says “the shark was jumped” with last week’s cancellation of Dr. Seuss books.

But what are to be the new standards of Trotskyization as we go forth? Can the Governor of New York be excused for months of policies that led to nearly 15,000 unnecessary deaths, but not for inappropriate kisses and touching of women? Or will he, as an Emmy-winning woke official, be exempt from punishment for both types of transgressions?

There are no logical standards that dictate who is and who is not canceled. For now, all we know about the rules of wokeness is that living leftists are mostly not canceled by the woke mob for the thought crimes that ruin both the non-Left or the generic dead.

There is a price to be paid for “wokeness.”

Wokeness is siphoning off billions of dollars from a productive economy through a sort of value-subtracted tax. We are spending a great deal of labor and capital for merit to be replaced in college admissions, in hiring, in grants, in publication, in the selections of awards, and in movies and videos, in everything—as racial, ethnic, and sexual identity considerations replace meritocratic, literary, artistic, and technological criteria, rather than just augment, them.

Americans also are investing lots of capital in preempting wokeness—writing/saying/acting in ways that are not productive, but simply defensive. Diversity oaths, and diversity applications, pledges, and statements take some time to read and digest. It will not be long before insurers will sell “woke insurance,” the premiums adjusted upward for those more conservative and of the wrong genealogy. It won’t be long before we all carry cards certifying that “At no time, did I say, hear, or think anything . . . .”

Our economy will soon mimic the totalitarian ones of old. Our commissars are like those of the old Red Army—ordering Soviet commanders’ counter-offensives during the Great Patriotic War to ensure that tank battalions were advancing ideologically correctly rather than just tactically or strategically soundly.

If that sounds overly dramatic to some, Dr. Hanson reminds us that at the height of the riots last May and June, then-President Donald Trump considered bringing in federal troops to maintain order. It was then that “280 former generals, admirals, and national security officials signed a letter warning that if Trump” were to do so, “he should be considered a dictatorial threat.” The letter read, “There is no role for the U.S. military in dealing with American citizens exercising their constitutional right to free speech, however uncomfortable that speech may be for some.”

Yet when Democrats insisted on bringing in 25,000 National Guard troops after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, this “group remained mute.”

No society can long exist if it believes that its own founding principles, its customs and traditions, its very origins are evil and must be erased. Tearing down statues of Abraham Lincoln, and redefining 1776 and 1787 as 1619, are many things, but one thing they are not is coherent. Trump was considered nutty when he warned that the statue topplers would go from Confederate monuments to Washington and Jefferson—and then when they did just that he was further ridiculed for being prescient.

Who were the long-dead men who devised a system whose natural and eventual fruition is what attracts indigenous people from Oaxaca, the destitute from Somalia, or the politically oppressed from Vietnam? If evil white people founded an evil system solely for their own evil purposes, why would anyone nonwhite dare risk his life to eat from the alluring fruit of the inherently long-ago poisoned tree?

If Americans are to accept that their Declaration of Independence and Constitution were frauds, abject falsifications of the real unspoken founding of 1619, then again what is to replace them? Whose statues are to rise, which books are we to be authorized to read, whose science are we to turn to?

“Everyone has feet of some clay,” Dr. Hanson reminds us. “Is there no adultery, or unkind treatment of women or plagiarism in the past of Martin Luther King, Jr? No violence or criminality in the life of Malcolm X? Did Cesar Chavez never send his goons to the border to beat back illegal aliens? Was Margaret Sanger only a sometimes advocate of eugenic abortion? Are the written biographies of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to be freed of anti-Semitism and petty corruption? Is Louis Farrakhan an ecumenical leader in the way FDR was not? Was JFK really our first feminist?”

Are we to look to those who erased our supposedly awful past for guidance?

Is it to be the architect of the 1619 Project? Long ago the ecumenical Nikole Hannah-Jones wrote that “the white race is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world . . . The descendants of these savage people pump drugs and guns into the Black community, pack Black people into the squalor of segregated urban ghettos and continue to be bloodsuckers in our community.”

Last summer, he points out, “Hannah-Jones bragged that, yes, it would be ‘an honor’ if the summer rioting—700 police officers injured, 40 deaths, and billions in property damages and hundreds—be called henceforth ‘the 1619 riots.'”

She also said, “Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence. … Any reasonable person would say we shouldn’t be destroying other people’s property, but these are not reasonable times.” He wondered if the Times considered Hannah-Jones “inflammatory?”

Moreover, he asks how we “ascertain who is and is not white or black or brown?”

Most illiberal societies in the past that tried such stigmatization of race, ethnicity, or religion did not end so well—from the Ottomans and the Third Reich to the former Yugoslavians, Rwandans, and Iraqis. One eighth, one fourth, or one half makes one a person of color—or not color? Shall we seek knowledge of one-drop of tell-tale bloodlines from the archived jurisprudence of the antebellum South?

If Peruvian George Zimmerman had only used his matronymic, and Latinized his first name, then would a Jorge Mesa have become a sympathetic character who lost a fair fight with Trayvon Martin rather than reduced by the New York Times to a strange category of “white Hispanic” hoodlum, with the additional odor of a Germanized patronymic.

Why does class bow to race, since the former seems to trump the latter. If we forget percentages for a moment, and also forget that we are individuals, not anonymous cogs of vast racial wheels, in absolute numbers, there are roughly (in some studies) more poor white people—both those earning incomes below the poverty level and those with no income at all—than all other commensurate poor minorities combined. Were these supposed to be the targets of Barack Obama’s “clingers” remarks, or Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables,” John McCain’s “crazies,” or Joe Biden’s “dregs,” “chumps,” and “Neanderthals”?

Predicating wokism on race is a tricky business, even if one could define and identify race, quantify its role in determining class status, and convince millions that it is moral to judge people by how they look.

Like the Salem witch trials and the McCarthyite hysteria, when wokism fades, we are likely to see its real catalysts revealed. And they will not be found to be misplaced idealism, nor heartfelt desire for a more ecumenical society, but mostly the age-old, narcissistic destructive road to career enhancement, fueled by customary ancient fears, envies, and hatreds.