‘Rural Oregon Wants Out of Oregon’; 5 Counties in the State Vote to Join Idaho

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Pexels from Pixabay

Secession was on the menu for five rural counties in Oregon in Tuesday’s election. Voters in Malheur, Sherman, Grant, Baker, and Lake counties would like to become part of Idaho, according to The Epoch Times.

The Times explains the odds of this actually happening are long because of the numerous hurdles involved. Here’s what it would take:

It would require a formal vote in the Democratic-controlled Oregon legislature. If that goes through, Oregon and Idaho would have to come up with a deal, which would then have to be ratified by the U.S. Congress.

Throughout the history of the United States, changing state lines has been a rare occurrence—all taking place before the 20th century. In 1792, Kentucky was created from Virginia’s territory, Maine was created from Massachusetts in 1820, and West Virginia in 1863 was admitted into the United States when Union states and counties separated themselves from the Confederate ones during the Civil War.

Oregon’s Jefferson and Union counties voted last year to leave the state and the measure will be on the ballot for two additional counties, Harney and Douglas, in an upcoming election, the report said.

The group behind this effort is called “Move Oregon’s Border for a Greater Idaho.” Unhappy with the liberal government in Oregon, they’d rather be part of a freer, more conservative state.

Mike McCarter, president of Citizens for Greater Idaho, told a local media outlet, “This election proves that rural Oregon wants out of Oregon. If Oregon really believes in liberal values such as self-determination, the Legislature won’t hold our counties captive against our will. If we’re allowed to vote for which government officials we want, we should be allowed to vote for which government we want as well.”

McCarter also said that Republican Idaho state Reps. Barbara Ehardt and Judy Boyle “plan to introduce legislation to move toward possible relocation of the Idaho/Oregon border next January.”

Who could possibly blame these voters for wanting to leave the insanity that defines Oregon’s leadership for the conservative governance of Idaho? Last month, Idaho’s Republican Gov. Brad Little signed legislation banning Critical Race Theory from being taught in public schools. Idaho is the first state in the U.S. to do so. I posted about this here.

This morning, I wrote about the passage of two constitutional amendments in Pennsylvania on Tuesday that will reign in the emergency powers of the state’s Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf.

Are Americans starting to fight back against the massive Democratic power grab? I certainly hope so.

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.

 

No, Actually the 2020 Election Has NOT Been Resolved

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by heblo from Pixabay

While reading an article about Liz Cheney in The Spectator earlier, I came across the following:

“Liz Cheney erred neither in condemning the riot nor in castigating Trump’s Ahab-like obsession over his loss but in remaining stuck in January 6 as the calendar moved on for the rest of us. Cheney’s position that Joe Biden legitimately beat Donald Trump, as readers of this column and the Spectator A.M. newsletter know, found endorsement here back in November. Trump lost by 74 electoral votes, after all, not seven. But that argument took place in the media, in courts, and in Congress more than four months ago. Cheney, perhaps more so than Trump, needs to get over this as a resolved question.”

It is not a resolved question. In fact, it’s far from a resolved question. The argument took place in the media and for about five minutes in Congress, but former President Donald Trump was never given his day in court.

The anomalies in the days following the election quickly multiplied. Over 1,000 election observers signed affidavits stating they had witnessed wrongdoing. Judges refused to hear their cases. No court would hear Trump’s cases. Not even the Supreme Court.

Immediately, the media set the narrative that the election was settled. When over 90 percent of the media unites around the same narrative, a phenomenon we witnessed repeatedly during the Trump years, the power is overwhelming.

Before too long, anyone who questioned Biden’s legitimacy was labeled as a conspiracy theorist. Then it simply became taboo to mention it.

But it still wasn’t settled.

In reporting a February Quinnipiac poll which revealed that 76 percent of Republicans believed widespread fraud had occurred in the election, CNN’s Chris Cillizza wrote “three quarters of Republicans believe a lie about the 2020 election.”

Stealing the presidency is a pretty audacious thing to do.

But, after watching the Democrats orchestrate the Russia Collusion hoax, a bogus impeachment, then a second impeachment against Trump, and turn Gen. Michael Flynn’s life into a living hell for four years to further their political goals, it’s not crazy to believe they would steal a presidential election.

In November 2020, over 2.1 million people voted in Arizona’s Maricopa County. These votes represent over 60 percent of all ballots cast in the state. The Republican-controlled state Senate is currently conducting a thorough forensic audit of all ballots cast in the County which has put the election back into the national headlines.

Almost eclipsing the story of the intensive audit that’s been underway for two weeks is the Democrats’ fury over it. (I posted about those efforts here.)

One of the first to cover the topic again was Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo, host of “Sunday Morning Futures.”

Bartiromo spoke to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton about the issue. “Let me switch gears and ask you about election integrity. This is a subject that has become taboo. We’re not allowed to question the 2020 election. We’re not allowed to question what is going on in Arizona or in Georgia. What do you say to what is going on in Georgia and how Texas is similar to that situation around election 2020?”

“Yeah, so if you look at election results from four years ago, Georgia and Texas were very similar,” the Republican responded. “We fought off 12 lawsuits. We were sued 12 times over mail-in ballots. It was Harris County, it was Travis County, these big urban counties that wanted to mail out all of these mail-in ballots in violation of state law. Clearly what was not allowed by the state legislature. And so, we fought these off.

“They didn’t want signature verification. We were told by a federal judge that was unconstitutional. So we had state lawsuits, different counties, federal lawsuits, we had 12 of them. We won every single one of them.

“Had we not won every single one of those lawsuits, I’m convinced that those ballots would have gone out and we would have been just like Georgia, who decided to capitulate and sign consent decrees and say, ‘It’s OK. We’re going to let these mail-in ballots go out. We’re going to allow no signature verification. We’re going to allow drop boxes.’

All of those things had an impact, and instead of Georgia and Texas having similar results this time because we defended those lawsuits, Trump won. We’re able to have a Republican legislature here, and in Georgia, it was completely turned.”

“So, are you saying that, because of what we saw in mail-in ballots in Georgia, you’re questioning the results?” Bartiromo asked.

“I absolutely am questioning,” Paxton replied. “I know what would have happened here. They would have stopped counting, just like they did in those states, and they would have been counting mail-in ballots until they get the right number of votes and suddenly Trump loses and we lose the state House here. We lose some of our Supreme Court justices. And it wouldn’t have been a legitimate count because we wouldn’t have followed state law.”

“So are you questioning what happened in the 2020 election?” she said.

“Absolutely,” he said. “They didn’t follow state law in these states. It’s clear. Whether you think there was fraud or not … we do know they didn’t follow state law.”

(The clip can be viewed here.)

Senate Parliamentarian Ruling May Allow Democrats to Pass Two More Spending Bills by Simple Majority

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Bishnu Sarangi from Pixabay

The Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, handed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer a big win on Monday evening. A new ruling may allow Senate Democrats to bypass the filibuster on two additional spending bills. In other words, Schumer needs only a simple majority to ram through two more bloated spending bills without a single Republican vote.

This is bad news for America.

Via a parliamentary procedure called budget reconciliation, which allows the Senate to pass “certain tax, spending, and debt limit” bills by a simple majority vote, the Biden Administration recently rammed through a $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill. Reconciliation, however, has its limits. Until now, this procedure could only be used twice in a fiscal year. MacDonough’s decision will likely provide Democrats with a third opportunity.

Knowing that the filibuster, which requires at least 60 votes to pass legislation, would otherwise prevent him from passing his socialist agenda, Schumer had been searching for a way to change the rules.

Last week, it was reported that Schumer and his aides were eyeing Section 304 of the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1974 which covers “Permissible revisions of concurrent resolutions on the budget.” Their “interpretation” of the language is that they are entitled to use reconciliation to pass at least one additional spending bill.

Asked at that time to explain Schumer’s objective, Axios’ Mike Allen wrote: “Top policy aides to Schumer recently argued to the Senate parliamentarian that revising this year’s budget resolution could ‘trigger an additional set of reconciliation instructions,’ which would allow for further 50-50 votes that are decided by Vice President Harris.”

“It’s not clear how many additional reconciliation opportunities this theory would open up, But the conventional wisdom is that Democrats have just one more shot at reconciliation this year, and this route would give them at least one more,” added Allen.

Monday night’s ruling means that the parliamentarian agrees with Schumer’s interpretation and that Democrats may be able to use reconciliation to pass at least one more budget busting bill this year than they had anticipated.

Following the ruling, Schumer’s spokesman Justin Goodman issued a statement which read: “The Parliamentarian has advised that a revised budget resolution may contain budget reconciliation instructions. While no decisions have been made on a legislative path forward using Section 304 and some parameters still need to be worked out, the Parliamentarian’s opinion is an important step forward that this key pathway is available to Democrats if needed.”

If needed?

Schumer is currently focused on Biden’s $2.3 trillion infrastructure bill for which there is no Republican support. (Beyond the infrastructure bill, Schumer is looking at an economic recovery bill.)

Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a Democrat, is currently giving the Majority leader some cause for agita. Manchin, who has been adamant in his opposition to eliminating the filibuster, announced on Monday that he opposes the infrastructure bill’s proposed corporate income tax hike. The current top income tax rate for corporations stands at 21 percent. This bill would raise the top corporate rate to 28 percent. Manchin favors a 25 percent rate. Prior to President Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, this rate had been 35 percent.

Republicans acknowledge that improvements to the country’s infrastructure are called for, however, they object to the price tag of this bill. Republican Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri told Fox News Sunday a more appropriate amount for an infrastructure bill would be $600 billion.

If ever there was a time for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to go “scorched earth,” it’s now.

FBI Issues Warning Not to Buy or Make Vaccine Card or Misrepresent Your Status, You May Be ‘Breaking the Law’

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay

There was a time when the FBI commanded Americans’ utmost respect. That was prior to 2016 when they actively participated in a plan to sabotage the candidacy of Donald Trump and following his unexpected victory, his presidency. At every turn, top FBI officials sought to destroy President Donald Trump. I don’t need to compile a list, because their complicity is well known and speaks for itself.

Last week, the FBI issued a public service announcement warning U.S. citizens not to buy or make vaccine cards or misrepresent their COVID-19 vaccination status. The agency cautioned they may be breaking the law if they do so.

The FBI is, of course, referring to the recent Biden Administration proposal that citizens be issued a “vaccine passport” so they can travel freely throughout the country.

The requirement of a “vaccine passport,” which would indicate whether or not a person has been vaccinated against COVID-19 or alternatively tested negative within a stipulated time frame, is a violation of our civil rights. It’s just one more of the many travesties conjured up by Democratic politicians eager to wield their emergency powers against their constituents.

This proposal triggered immediate outrage from conservatives who are fed up with the government’s overreach and the loss of our civil rights in the name of COVID-19.

According to a weekend article in The New York Times, “the Biden administration has made clear that it will neither issue nor require the passports,”

So, why would the nation’s premier law enforcement agency try to enforce this? Why did this warrant a warning about breaking the law? It’s not even a law. It’s a mere proposal and a deeply unpopular and divisive one at that.

Is it any wonder that so many red state governors vehemently oppose vaccine passports?

On Friday, Florida’s Republican Gov. Rick DeSantis issued an executive order “prohibiting the use of so-called COVID-19 vaccine passports. The Legislature is working on making permanent these protections for Floridians and I look forward to signing them into law soon.” The order can be viewed here.

The document states that vaccination records are “private health information which should not be shared by mandate.” In addition, they “reduce individual freedom and harm patient privacy.”

The order also states that businesses in Florida are “prohibited from requiring patrons or customers to provide any documentation” about their COVID-19 vaccination status.

All I know is that we the people need to stand up and fight against the tyranny the Biden Administration is trying to thrust upon us. We must do this loudly and often.

Last week, the Democratic House candidate from IA-02 who lost the election to her Republican opponent by six points withdrew her bid to have the election overturned by a Democrat controlled House committee. The candidate, Rita Hart, had the full support of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She didn’t withdraw because she realized it was wrong to try to steal a seat in Congress. Hart withdrew because the “disinformation campaign from the right wing media” became intolerable to her.

From that, we must learn a larger lesson. If we’re loud enough and persistent enough, we can make a difference.

Memo to the FBI:  Why don’t you get your own house in order, maybe catch a few real criminals before you try circulating something so tone-deaf, unwelcome and unnecessary like this again.

Despite the Indignation From the Left, New AP Poll Shows 72% of Americans Approve of Voter ID Laws

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by chayka1270 from Pixabay

Democrats have beclowned themselves this week over the passage of voter reform measures by the Georgia State Legislature. Despite the theatrics from the left, you might be surprised to hear that a strong majority of Americans support voter ID laws. The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that 72 percent of respondents believe photo identification should be required in order to vote.

The poll showed that only 13 percent opposed voter ID laws and 14 percent neither supported nor opposed them.

Even among Democrats, 56 percent favored photo identification requirements, 24 percent opposed and 20 percent took no position.

As you would expect, 91 percent of Republicans supported these measures.

The poll, conducted March 26-29, surveyed 1,166 adults and has a margin of error of 3.6 percent.

The AP/NORC results bolster the results of a Rasmussen telephone and internet survey conducted last month, which found that 69 percent of black voters and 75 percent of overall voters supported photo ID requirements. Only 21 percent were opposed.

Rasmussen reported that support for voter ID laws “has actually increased since 2018, when 67% said voters should be required to show photo identification such as a driver’s license before being allowed to vote.”

And the Rasmussen results were extremely close to the newly reported AP/NORC poll. According to Rasmussen, 89 percent of Republicans, 60 percent of Democrats and 77 percent of independents believe voters should be required to show photo ID.

Nevertheless, Democrats are working feverishly to find a way to pass the ironically named “For the People Act of 2021,” (H.R. 1/S. 1). If this unfortunate bill becomes law, it will nullify the voting reform measures recently passed by state legislatures. So much for federalism.

Described as the “Democrats’ only chance to stop the GOP assault on voting rights” by The Atlantic’s Ronald Brownstein, it is designed to nearly guarantee one-party rule in the U.S. for generations to come.

Brownstein writes, “If the party doesn’t pass new protections, it could lose the House, Senate, and White House within the next four years.” He sums up the hyperbole of the left in one paragraph.

It’s no exaggeration to say that future Americans could view the resolution of this struggle as a turning point in the history of U.S. democracy. The outcome could not only shape the balance of power between the parties, but determine whether that democracy grows more inclusive or exclusionary. To many civil-rights advocates and democracy scholars I’ve spoken with, this new wave of state-level bills constitutes the greatest assault on Americans’ right to vote since the Jim Crow era’s barriers to the ballot.

Not even the far-left Washington Post believes the recent measures taken by state lawmakers to bolster photo ID requirements bear any resemblance to Jim Crow voting laws. When we start sending out snarling attack dogs and go after minorities with fire hoses, Democrats can start making those comparisons. But until then, Brownstein just sounds like a liar and his editors, fools.

We can only hope that Democrats have crossed the line so unequivocally over the last few months, that maybe even some within their own party will recognize it and wake up.

After the massive amount of damage the Biden Administration has already inflicted on this country, Democrats don’t deserve to ever hold power again.

Democrat Trying to Steal Iowa House Seat Withdraws Bid, Cites Republicans’ ‘Toxic Campaign of Political Disinformation’

Advertisements
Photo by Element5 Digital on Pexels.com

I’ve written endlessly about the race for the open seat in Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District which was one of the tightest House races in recent memory. In the weeks following the Nov. 3 election, the lead changed hands several times as uncounted ballots were discovered and other issues were resolved. Ultimately, a statewide recount was conducted and the Republican candidate, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, was declared the winner. She had defeated her Democratic opponent, Rita Hart, by six votes, and the state certified the results on Nov. 30. Miller-Meeks was sworn into Congress in January.

Lo and behold, the Hart campaign found 22 uncounted ballots, which she claimed would put her ahead of Miller-Meeks by nine votes. Rather than going through the traditional channels which would have meant an appeal through the Iowa court system, Hart’s team went on to file a “Notice of Contest” with the U.S. House Administrative Committee.

You may recall House Speaker Nancy Pelosi making headlines last week for insisting she had the right to seat or unseat any member of Congress.

Republicans were surprised that Pelosi would support Hart’s attempt to overturn a certified election result after the Democrats’ acrimonious shaming and blaming of President Trump for doing the same. Even some Democrats saw the irony in the situation.

Hart should have taken her dispute to the Iowa courts. She chose not to, likely because she knew her case was weak.

Republicans found the whole idea of a House committee overturning a certified state election result to be despicable.

Over the last three months, the conservative media has pulled out all the stops to expose the irony and the indecency of what Hart, with the full support of Pelosi, was trying to do. I wrote four or five posts about this race myself.

On Wednesday afternoon, Hart surprisingly announced her decision to withdraw her “contest.” She cited “the toxic campaign of political disinformation to attack this constitutional review of the closest congressional contest in 100 years has effectively silenced the voices of Iowans. It is a stain on our democracy that the truth has not prevailed and my hope for the future is a return to decency and civility.”

If you take away her rancor, she blames the Republicans’ “toxic campaign of political disinformation” for her withdrawal. I call it a concerted effort to point out the truth of this despicable and dishonest attempt to steal an election.

This is a rare win for the conservative media. Instead of writing about it once or twice and simply watching the Democrats roll over us again, we went all out and it worked. We need to remember our winning formula here. We need to keep pounding and pounding and pounding the Democrats as they do to Republicans.

Next project, the border crisis.

Hart’s full statement can be viewed in the tweet below.

Pelosi Weighs Decision to Steal Iowa House Seat: It’s My Right to Seat or Unseat Any Member of Congress

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by David Mark from Pixabay

The race for the open seat in Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District was one of the tightest House races in recent memory. In the weeks following the Nov. 3 election, the lead changed hands several times in a statewide recount until finally the Republican candidate, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, was declared the winner. She had defeated her Democratic opponent, Rita Hart, by six votes, and the state certified the results on Nov. 30.

“Hart’s team alleges that there are 22 ballots that should have been counted in the election and that if they had, she would have won by nine votes. Hart’s campaign has cited examples including five absentee ballots cast in her favor that were not counted because they were not properly sealed,” according to NPR.

Rather than going through traditional channels, which would have meant an appeal through Iowa’s court system, Hart’s team went on to file a “Notice of Contest” with the U.S. House Administrative Committee seeking to overturn the results.

The House committee voted along party lines to review Hart’s challenge and “attorneys for the two candidates submitted initial legal briefs … on Monday. In a terse 23-page brief, Miller-Meeks’ counsel broadly denied Hart’s claims and said the burden was on Hart to prove that a state-certified election should be overturned,” NPR reported.

Miller-Meeks was provisionally sworn in in January.

Asked about this case at a press conference, Pelosi replied, “If I wanted to be unfair, I wouldn’t have seated the Republican from Iowa, because that was my right on the opening day. I would have just said, ‘You’re not seated,’ and that would have been my right as Speaker to do.”

Actually, the Speaker’s job is to seat the lawmakers whom the states have certified as the winners.

This woman seems to lack any sense of right and wrong.

Reportedly, even many House Democrats are balking at the thought  of overturning a state-certified election.

From The Wall Street Journal:

More House Democrats are expressing concern over potentially having to vote later this year on whether to overturn a Republican congresswoman’s razor-thin victory in Iowa.

The House Administration Committee opted on party lines earlier this month to review a challenge from Democratic candidate Rita Hart disputing her loss by six votes to GOP Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks. The Iowa State Board of Canvassers certified Ms. Miller-Meeks’s narrow win following a recount of the full district. But the legal team of Ms. Hart, who is challenging the results under the Federal Contested Elections Act, said there are 22 valid ballots that were never counted, which could reverse the outcome.

Some House Democrats have recently shared their concerns with Democratic leaders over having to potentially vote to overturn a state-certified election in Iowa and conveyed to them that they might not have enough votes to prevail, according to lawmakers and aides. Democrats currently hold a narrow 219-211 majority and can lose no more than three votes on measures opposed by all Republicans.

[…]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said Thursday it was Ms. Hart’s right to contest her narrow loss.

“If you had lost a race by six votes, wouldn’t you like to say ‘there must be some way that we can count this?’” she said to reporters. “We are obligated under federal law to follow the process and the facts.”

Last month, Politico reported that Hart “has made the experiences of these voters central to her post-campaign messaging: They have taped videos and called into virtual campaign events to express their disappointment at being disenfranchised. One voter accidentally ripped her ballot envelope while sealing it but was told it would count anyway. Another received an absentee ballot that was already sealed and was told to reopen it and then tape it shut.”

Hart’s lead attorney is Marc Elias of the Perkins, Coie law firm in Washington, D.C. If his name sounds familiar, it’s because it was Elias who laundered funds from Hillary Clinton and the DNC through his firm to pay Fusion GPS, an opposition research firm owned by Glenn Simpson, to produce the infamous Steele dossier.

Elias also represented New York Democrat Anthony Brindisi’s recent (and fortunately unsuccessful) effort to overturn his loss to Republican Claudia Tenney in the state’s 22nd Congressional District race. Brindisi conceded to Tenney last month.

Ironically, Elias argued, “In this case, there is reason to believe that voting tabulation machines misread hundreds if not thousands of valid votes as undervotes … and that these tabulation machine errors disproportionately affected Brindisi. … In addition, Oswego County admitted in a sworn statement to this Court that its tabulation machines were not tested and calibrated in the days leading up to the November 3, 2020 General Election as required by state law and necessary to ensure that the counts generated by tabulation machines are accurate.”

Then why was it ridiculous when Trump’s attorneys made the same argument? Obviously, this is a rhetorical question. We know why.

In addition, according to The Washington Times, Elias “led a team of President Biden attorneys successfully fighting Trump challenges in over 50 courts.”

“The last time the House chose to overturn a state-certified election was an acrimonious affair,” Politico reported. “After the 1984 elections, the House Democratic majority refused to seat the Republican challenger to Democratic Rep. Frank McCloskey.”

“A Republican official in Indiana certified the GOP candidate, Richard McIntyre, as the winner, but a recount conducted by Congress found McCloskey won by 4 votes. When the House Democrats voted to seat McCloskey, Republicans stormed out of the chamber in protest.”

It looks like the House might be headed for yet another acrimonious affair.

TX GOP Candidate Knows ‘How to Handle Nancy Pelosi and Stop Her Bullsh**’

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Gordon Johnson from Pixabay

A former professional wrestler from Las Vegas has thrown his hat into the very large ring of candidates vying for the vacant seat of the late Republican Texas Rep. Ron Wright.

The Daily Caller reports that six-foot-seven Dan Rodimer entered the race at the last minute. “The special election has 22 other candidates including Wright’s widow.” The former WWE wrestler is a father of six, and a law school graduate.

In his campaign ad below, “Big Dan” tells voters, “Texas has big problems. We need a big fighter to solve those problems.” Here are some of the highlights:

The commies in D.C. are ruining America. We have a big problems … I know how to handle Nancy Pelosi and stop her bullsh**.

(Steps into a pile of manure) I’ll put a boot right in her socialist platform.

Men in women’s bathrooms, boys in girls’ sports, higher taxes, higher gas prices. They’re building a wall around D.C., but they’re not protecting our borders. They’re laughing at us. Now they’re going to try to take away our guns. (Sound of a gun being cocked.) Oh, hell no.

I moved my family of seven back to Texas because I want to raise my kids in Constitution friendly state. Here in Texas, we are free. We live free.

“The communists in D.C. want to shut down our churches, close our businesses, indoctrinate our children, communism in our classrooms, make our daughters unsafe in sports and school, destroy American borders and our American history. We must stop them.”

“Hire me to represent you and I’ll go to D.C. and kick some left-wing a**.”

Rodimer is brash and a bit over-the-top, but this is what we need in Washington. Although their personalities are different, his “in your face” manner would ruffle liberals feathers in a big way.

The problem in D.C. is that Republicans are too timid. For some, that may be politeness, but for others, it looks like fear. Democrats need to be called out and utterly humiliated for the actions they’ve taken over the last few months.

Republicans would be wise to take a lesson from the Biden Administration’s absolute mortification in Alaska at the hands of the Chinese. Rather than being cowed by Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s (accurate) accusations, top Chinese diplomat Yang Jiechi gave as good as he got. He shot right back with a list of America’s shortcomings. When it was Yang’s turn to speak, Blinken inexplicably dismissed the press. This prompted Yang to embarrass him by asking why did that. After all, Yang chided, America was a democracy. In a recent post about these talks, I wrote that Yang had neither fear, nor respect for Blinken or anyone else in the Biden Administration.

We need strong politicians to fight back against the Democrats’ massive power grab.

If I lived in Texas, Rodimer would have my vote.

———-

Here are a few posts from Rodimer’s Twitter page:

Black Leaders Take Aim at Sens. Sinema, Manchin Over Refusal to Nix Filibuster; ‘They Are, in Effect, Supporting Racism’

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by mjimages from Pixabay

The Senate website defines the filibuster as an “informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.” This device is meant to prevent the party in the Senate minority from being completely overpowered by the majority party.

Prior to the election, the Indivisible Project, a movement dedicated to advancing the election of progressive candidates, explained why the filibuster is bad news for Democrats:

“It’s simple: none of the progressive issues that Democratic candidates and congressional leaders are discussing today will become law unless we do something about the filibuster.”

“If [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell expects to be the Grim Reaper of progressive policies, the scythe he’ll use is the Senate filibuster. Unless we change the rules.”

With a 50-50 balance of power in the Senate, Democrats control the upper chamber by the slimmest margin possible.

Current Senate rules require a minimum of 60 votes to pass legislation. Some Democrats have hoped to abolish the filibuster so that only a simple majority of 51 votes (50 Democratic senators plus Vice President Kamala Harris’ tie-breaking vote) would be necessary to advance their progressive agenda.

Their latest challenge is that two Democratic Senators, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, have both quite strongly announced their opposition to abolishing the filibuster.

Just two months ago, a representative for Sinema told The Washington Post’s White House reporter, Seung Min Kim, that “Kyrsten is against eliminating the filibuster, and she is not open to changing her mind about eliminating the filibuster.”

Up until then, conservatives had been counting on Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia to save us from being overrun by leftist lesiglation. Manchin won re-election in 2018 in a state that went overwhelmingly for former President Donald Trump by nearly 40 points in 2020 and over 41 in 2016.

Shortly after the announcement from Team Sinema, Politico reported that Manchin was “emphatic” that he “will not vote to kill the filibuster.” Asked if there were any scenario in which he would change his mind, the senator replied: “None whatsoever that I will vote to get rid of the filibuster.”

Protecting the filibuster is essential to protecting us from the tyranny of the majority.

Even with the filibuster in place, Democrats can do and have already done a lot of damage. But their major radical initiatives, such as the Election Reform bill which passed the House earlier this month, granting statehood to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, and stacking the Supreme Court, can be blocked by the Republicans.

Naturally, Democrats are trying to exert maximum pressure on Sinema and Manchin to change their minds.

Politico has interviewed several black civil rights leaders to find out what they plan to do about this. According to Politico, “top [civil rights] officials framed the choice as existential for a party that depends on Black and brown voters — and they are planning pressure campaigns privately and publicly to make that clear.”

Rev. Al Sharpton plans to hold town halls and rallies in Sinema’s and Manchin’s home states. He said, “The pressure that we are going to put on Sinema and Manchin is calling [the filibuster] racist and saying that they are, in effect, supporting racism. Why would they be wedded to something that has those results? Their voters need to know that.”

Sharpton cautioned Democrats that if they fail to end the filibuster, then “civil rights leaders might have less reason to help generate enthusiasm and turnout in the 2022 midterm elections without being able to point to actual laws Democrats passed.”

Sounds like a threat.

He added, “Many of us, and certainly all of us in the civil rights leadership, are committed to policies and laws and causes, not to people’s political careers. We’re not into that. We want to change the country. And if there is not feasible evidence that we’re doing that, it is not in our concern to be aggressively involved.”

Sinema and/or Manchin may yet flip, but I would be willing to bet it wouldn’t be because Al Sharpton and his merry band of civil rights leaders come to their states and call them racists.

Although politicians are famous for flip-flopping, after putting out such a strong statement of opposition as her representative did in conversation with the Washington Post reporter, I would be surprised if Sinema caved. Sharpton’s actions might just make her dig in her heels a little deeper.

Manchin, on the other hand, strikes me as less resolute than Sinema. However, he did say he was “emphatic” he wouldn’t vote to end the filibuster.

There is another option. The Senate could potentially create a carve-out specifically for voting rights legislation, a measure they’ve taken before. The Senate has created exceptions to the filibuster in the past for confirmations of Supreme Court nominees and for budget reconciliation (which is how the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill was passed).

Manchin is currently the only Senate Democrat who is not a co-sponsor of the voting reform bill known as S. 1.

On Wednesday, Manchin told reporters, “I think all of us should be able to be united around voting rights, but it should be limited to voting rights.”

But if the bill were to be limited to votings rights, according to CBS News, “it would strip provisions related to campaign finance and ethics reform, which are key priorities for progressives.”

In a Tuesday statement, “Manchin expressed concerns about S. 1, and said that he would support bipartisan legislation on voting rights.” The statement said:

As the Senate prepares to take up the For the People Act, we must work toward a bipartisan solution that protects everyone’s right to vote, secures our elections from foreign interference, and increases transparency in our campaign finance laws. Pushing through legislation of this magnitude on a partisan basis may garner short-term benefits, but will inevitably only exacerbate the distrust that millions of Americans harbor against the U.S. government.

He issued another statement on Thursday in which he reiterated his opposition to creating a carve-out to the filibuster rule specifically for voting rights. He noted that would be “like being a little bit pregnant.” You either kill the filibuster or you keep it.

Let’s hope that both he and Sinema stand by their pledges not to abolish the filibuster. All Republican senators, even those whose votes can’t always be counted on, such as Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, are unanimously opposed to ending the filibuster. They are also opposed to the voting reform bill.

Sinema and Manchin are the only thing standing between us and the enactment of the Democrats’ entire radical agenda.  Let’s hope they stand strong.