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.

 

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.

Here’s Why the Democrats Might Want the National Guard Troops to Remain at Capitol

Advertisements

On Tuesday, the Pentagon announced that Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III had approved a request from the U.S. Capitol Police for 2,300 National Guard troops to remain in Washington, D.C. through May 23, 2021 to “continue the support mission.” There are currently 5,200 troops deployed to the Capitol.

I can think of two reasons for the troop presence.

First, it allows the Democrats, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to maintain the fiction that they need protection from the unhinged “domestic terrorists” who support former President Donald Trump.

Just as the installation of a seven-foot tall, three-mile long security fence (complete with barbed wire) and magnetometers at each entrance to the House chamber telegraph the message that lawmakers are in harm’s way, the presence of several thousand National Guard troops serves to intensify the effect.

Ever since the troops arrived in Washington, I’ve believed this. However, I’m now starting to see it differently. Democrats may actually believe they need protection.

Because Democratic leaders, and Pelosi most of all, are well aware of the extent of their corruption, they may truly fear that “the people” will deliver the backlash they deserve.

Although CNN and The New York Times tell us the November election was free and fair and that the matter is settled, 75 million Americans still have their doubts. A read of Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent following the Court’s decision not to review Trump’s lawsuits against the state of Pennsylvania speaks volumes. He says the decision, invites the “erosion of voter confidence.” And he is correct.

Consider the Democratic “power grab” that began the very day President Joe Biden took office.

There are too many corrupt acts to count, but here are a few.

  • Reversed key Trump Administration immigration policies (that were working) such as catch and release. Biden’s actions have created a new crisis at the border, although no administration officials have acknowledged it.
  • Canceled the Keystone Pipeline, instantly ending thousands of high-paying union jobs. They also “paused” new drilling leases on federal lands. They declared war on the fossil fuel industry. These policies have already led to higher gasoline prices.
  • The passage of a $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill, 10% of which actually goes to coronavirus related items. As I posted here, it includes an $86 billion bailout for failing pensions which even The New York Times admits has nothing to do with COVID. It will also bailout states and cities which have been mismanaged their finances for decades. The city of San Francisco alone will receive $600 million to erase the bulk of their debt, most of which accrued prior to the pandemic.
  • Beholden to the powerful teacher’s unions, the administration has refused to order teachers back to work. The extended period of virtual learning has taken a toll on student’s mental health. Rates of depression, anxiety and even suicide have climbed dramatically. Still, Biden does not act.
  • Although his handler’s Middle East strategy isn’t clear yet, Biden has temporarily frozen and is re-examining arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. It took him four weeks to finally call Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, our closest ally in the region.
  • Offered to restart nuclear talks with Iran; Withdrew Trump’s restoration of U.N. sanctions on Iran.
  • Rejoined the corrupt World Health Organization.
  • Rejoined the Paris Climate Accord.

The administration is desperate to pass S.1 (the Senate’s version of H.R. 1), the “For the People Act.” This legislation proposes to make permanent all of the changes such as the explosion of mail-in voting and early voting, that arguably made victory possible for Biden. If this bill becomes law, it will nearly guarantee one party rule in the U.S. for years to come.

Fortunately, it faces a higher bar in the Senate than the COVID-19 bill which only required a simple majority vote. S.1 would require 60 votes in the Senate for passage unless, of course, Democrats can find a way to abolish the legislative filibuster.

Anyway, well aware of their unprecedented and un-American power grab and their transformation of a once-great nation, Democrats may fear reprisal from the people.

If I had done all that the Democrats have done to undermine our democratic republic, it wouldn’t be crazy for me to think I might need some protection too.

20 States Send Letter to Congressional Leaders Promising Swift Consequences if HR1 Passes

Advertisements

Democratic leaders no longer even try to hide their real objectives. All of the bills introduced by Democratic lawmakers have been undisguised power grabs.

Having been well pleased with the flexibility in voting methods the pandemic allowed them, and certainly with the result of the election, party leaders decided to make these changes permanent. The result was the passage of H.R. 1, the “For the People Act of 2021,” (the Act), by the House of Representatives on Wednesday.

Noting the gross overreach by the federal government in the bill, the attorneys general of 20 states penned a letter to Congressional leadership which can be viewed here.

This group of top law enforcement officers write that “it is difficult to imagine a legislative proposal more threatening to election integrity and voter confidence.” They make the case that H.R. 1 strips the state legislatures of their constitutionally granted authority to determine how elections will be held in their states.

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, the leader of this group and the first signer of the letter, issued a statement to Fox News which read in part, “This monstrosity of a bill betrays the Constitution, dangerously federalizes state elections, and undermines the integrity of the ballot box. As a former chief election officer, and now an Attorney General, I know this would be a disaster for election integrity and confidence in the processes that have been developed over time to instill confidence in the idea of ‘one person, one vote.’”

The letter begins: “As introduced, the Act betrays several Constitutional deficiencies and alarming mandates that, if passed, would federalize state elections and impose burdensome costs and regulations on state and local officials. Under both the Elections Clause of Article I of the Constitution and the Electors Clause of Article II, States have principal — and with presidential elections, exclusive — responsibility to safeguard the manner of holding elections. The Act would invert that constitutional structure, commandeer state resources, confuse and muddle elections procedures, and erode faith in our elections and systems of governance.”

It states further that “the Act regulates ‘election for Federal office,’ defined to include ‘election for the office of President or Vice President.’ The Act therefore implicates the Electors Clause, which expressly affords ‘Each State’ the power to ‘appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,’ the state’s allotment of presidential electors, and separately affords Congress only the more limited power to ‘determine the Time of chusing the Electors.’  That exclusive division of power for setting the ‘manner’ and ‘time’ of choosing presidential electors differs markedly from the collocated powers of the Article I Elections Clause, which says that both States and Congress have the power to regulate the ‘time, place, and manner’ of congressional elections.”

“That distinction is not an accident of drafting,” the group maintains. “After extensive debate, the Constitution’s Framers deliberately excluded Congress from deciding how presidential electors would be chosen in order to avoid presidential dependence on Congress for position and authority.”

They cite a Supreme Court ruling in the case of McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 27 (1892) in which the court upheld “a Michigan statute apportioning presidential electors by district.” The court “observed that the Electors Clause ‘convey[s] the broadest power of determination’ and ‘leaves it to the [state] legislature exclusively to define the method’ of appointment of electors.”

“The exclusivity of state power to ‘define the method’ of choosing presidential electors,” write the attorneys general, “means that Congress may not force states to permit presidential voting by mail or curbside voting, for example.”

The group notes the Act’s “regulation of congressional elections” which includes “mandating mail-in voting, requiring states to accept late ballots, overriding state voter identification (“ID”) laws, and mandating that states conduct redistricting through unelected commissions [gerrymandering], also faces severe constitutional hurdles.” Rather than “acting as a check,” Congress is “seizing the role of principal election regulator.”

The letter excoriates the Democrats’ proposal to eliminate voter ID laws which the group writes is “perhaps” the “most egregious” feature of the bill. It also cites the Act’s attempt to put limitations on how states can purge voter rolls of those who have left the state.

“The Act would dismantle meaningful voter ID laws by allowing a statement, as a substitute for prior-issued, document-backed identification, to “attest [ ] to the individual’s identity and . . . that the individual is eligible to vote in the election.” This does little to ensure that voters are who they say they are.”

Identification is required for everything in modern life. I went to a Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles facility several months ago to renew my driver’s license. In Connecticut, a trip to the DMV requires several hours. Finally working my way to the front of the line, I presented my passport, social security card, even my birth certificate – complete with a raised seal. I had forgotten, however, to bring two pieces of mail from my address of the last 27 years, so I would not be allowed to receive a “REAL ID,” one that could be used to board an airplane. Unless I wanted to do all of this over again, I would be issued a “standard” license that stated “Not for Federal Identification” on its face. Deciding that I’d rather stick needles in my eyes than repeat this exercise anytime soon, I opted for the standard license.

Voting is one of the most sacred privileges of a U.S. citizen. There is only one reason for waiving the voter ID requirement. And that is because it facilitates voter fraud. It’s that simple.

The attorneys general conclude with the following message. “Despite recent calls for political unity, the Act takes a one-sided approach to governing and usurps states’ authority over elections. With confidence in elections at a record low, the country’s focus should be on building trust in the electoral process. Around the nation, the 2020 general elections generated mass confusion and distrust — problems that the Act would only exacerbate. Should the Act become law, we will seek legal remedies to protect the Constitution, the sovereignty of all states, our elections, and the rights of our citizens.”

In their quest for absolute power, Democrats have forgotten that the United States is a constitutional federal republic. Our government “is based on a Constitution which is the supreme law of the United States. The Constitution not only provides the framework for how the federal and state governments are structured, but also places significant limits on their powers.” (Emphasis added.)

Finally, “‘federal’ means that there is both a national government and governments of the 50 states.” Under the federal system of government, state legislatures are granted the power to determine election laws in the state.

Blinded by their lust for power, Democrats are ignoring the Constitution and showing complete disregard for the rule of law. The fact that 20 attorneys general have come forward to threaten “legal remedies” to protect the Constitution, the sovereignty of all states, our elections, and the rights of our citizens,” if this bill becomes law, speaks volumes.

The National Constitution Center, a left-leaning think tank, provides the weak counter-argument to the belief that states have the right to set their own regulations concerning elections. They claim that the Elections Clause “vests ultimate power in Congress.” They write that the Framers “were concerned that states might establish unfair election procedures or attempt to undermine the national government by refusing to hold elections for Congress.”

The NCC website states: “Although the Elections Clause makes states primarily responsible for regulating congressional elections, it vests ultimate power in Congress. Congress may pass federal laws regulating congressional elections that automatically displace (“preempt”) any contrary state statutes, or enact its own regulations concerning those aspects of elections that states may not have addressed. The Framers of the Constitution were concerned that states might establish unfair election procedures or attempt to undermine the national government by refusing to hold elections for Congress. They empowered Congress to step in and regulate such elections as a self-defense mechanism.”

I am not a lawyer, but I believe the opposite is true, that the Framers were more concerned with endowing the states with sovereignty.

A final decision on this case may ultimately require an interpretation of the Tenth and Eleventh amendments by the Supreme Court.

So far, however, perhaps because they feel vulnerable over Democrats’ threats to pack the court, the justices have repeatedly rejected attempts to get pulled into political disputes. Rather than being mere “political disputes,” I see them as questions requiring constitutional interpretation. And isn’t that why we have a Supreme Court?

This bill may never need to be settled by the Supreme Court. Hopefully, it will fail in the Senate. In March 2019, then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked an earlier version of the “For the People Act.”

(Note: After the new version was introduced in January, Fox News’ Tucker Carlson addressed the features of this proposed legislation on his show. He concluded that if H.R. 1 were to become law, it would “enshrine fraud.” A video of Carlson’s excellent analysis can be viewed here.)

Here’s The Good News About the House’s Passage of The Biggest Democratic Power Grab in History

Advertisements

Before shuttering the Capitol building on Wednesday night due to threats of “danger” from unhinged Trump supporters on Thursday (sarcasm), the House passed H.R. 1, the ironically named “For the People Act,” by a vote of 220-210. It is impossible to overstate the damage this legislation, if it were to pass the Senate, would do to this once-great nation.

The stated purpose of H.R. 1 is:  “To expand Americans’ access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and implement other anti-corruption measures for the purpose of fortifying our democracy, and for other purposes.” The full text of H.R. 1 can be viewed here.

The real purpose of the bill is to make permanent many of the changes made to state voting systems and procedures ostensibly to facilitate voting in the age of COVID-19.

One of the most notable features of H.R. 1 is that it strips states of the right to set their own standards for how elections are to be conducted. Election laws would be determined at the federal level.

Under this bill, states would be required to promote the use of mail-in voting, to offer online applications for voter registration, and to provide automatic and even same-day voter registration.

H.R. 1 would all but eliminate voter ID laws. It would prohibit states from “requiring identification as a condition of obtaining a ballot.”

Another provision, Section 1621, would require the “uniform availability of absentee voting to all voters.” Every voter will have the option of casting an absentee ballot by mail. A state may not attach any conditions to this right.

In addition, “ballot harvesting” would be allowed in every state.

In other words, all of the practices that handed victory to the Democrats in the 2020 election would become law.

If this legislation passes, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for Republicans to ever win another election.

Suffice it to say, the passage of H.R. 1 would radically change the way the U.S. conducts elections. The implementation of these practices will be a recipe for massive fraud.

Election fraud, as we’ve learned the hard way over the past several months, is relatively easy to perpetrate, but difficult to prove.

I said there would be some good news and there is indeed!

Unless the Senate votes to abolish the filibuster, 60 votes would be required for this bill to pass the upper chamber. That would mean that ten Republicans would have to vote for it – which is not going to happen.

I don’t even think Sens. Mitt Romney (R-UT) or Susan Collins (R-ME) would go for this.

Oddly, ending the legislative filibuster would only require a simple majority, or 51 votes, to pass. There are currently 50 Democratic senators in addition to Vice President Kamala Harris who would be available to cast the deciding vote.

(Note: Please scroll down for an explanation of the filibuster.)

The extremely good news is that two Democratic senators, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have both publicly and unequivocally stated their opposition to ending the legislative filibuster.

Shortly after H.R.1 was introduced in the House, a representative of Arizona Sen. Kyrsten 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 now, conservatives have 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.

In the past, Manchin has expressed his opposition to ending the filibuster, but recent statements have left Republicans wondering.

However, Politico reported (on the same day Sinema’s spokesperson made the announcement above) 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.”

Perhaps he had gotten wind of Sinema’s announcement by that time.

Either way, the Arizonan’s remarkable decision came as welcome news to all of us who have feared the radical agenda now being promoted by the left.

Sinema’s and Manchin’s opposition to abolishing the filibuster will not save us from the Democrats’ entire agenda, but it should stop the most radical parts of it.

Free and fair elections are the cornerstone of democracy. If H.R. 1 were to become law, voter fraud will become easier than ever and the U.S. may never hold an honest election again. This bill represents a clear and present danger to the integrity of U.S. elections.

Brief Explanation of the Filibuster:

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.

Currently, 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.

Prior to the election, the Indivisible Project, a movement dedicated to advancing the election of progressive candidates, explained why this 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.