33 2 mins 2 yrs

They’re trying to use the U.S. Capitol riots as an excuse to criminalize dissent and banish conservative voices from the public sphere, and at the same time they’re hoping to use their temporary, razor-thin majority in Congress to rewrite the rules governing our elections in a way designed to keep the Democratic Party entrenched in power for decades to come. 

In the House, Democrats have revived sweeping election reform legislation that died in the Senate during the previous session, perhaps hoping they can browbeat enough Republicans into going along with them. If that happens, the “Grand Old Party” of Abraham Lincoln might as well disband, because Republicans would never have any hope of regaining a congressional majority or controlling the White House under the rules that HR 1 would put in place. 

Although the Constitution explicitly places state legislatures in charge of managing federal elections, HR 1 seeks to use the power of the purse to bludgeon the states into conforming to a centralized system pioneered in California and other deep-blue states. Congress can’t technically compel the states to change their voting laws, but seasoned politicians know that the states have become dependent on federal money to run their elections, and can’t afford to pick up the tab themselves. 

To make matters worse, HR 1 declares that Congress possesses “ultimate supervisory power over Federal elections” — an extraordinary usurpation of governmental authority that the Founders specifically assigned to the states. 

The 2020 election witnessed private interests dictating the manner in which the election was conducted in the nation’s urban cores. Mark Zuckerberg alone poured $419 million into this scheme

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

33 thoughts on “I hear goose steppin…..

  1. To make matters worse, HR 1 declares that Congress possesses “ultimate supervisory power over Federal elections” — an extraordinary usurpation of governmental authority that the Founders specifically assigned to the states.

    Do you even know what your own arguments are?

    A very short time ago, you were wanting the feds ( Supreme Court, Mike Pence ) to nullify the people’s votes in Georgia, Pennsylvania and other places.

    You were for it, now you’re against it!

  2. Phantom I’m also for Congress taking Control of the system. I argued last week that it is the only other Constitutionally viable action…. I even said let Nancy do it.

    I actually disagree with the premise of the paragraph. It’s perfectly Constitutional because the constitution state right in it Congress IS the only body that can overide the states specifically for the reason of standards.

    My issue with HR1 is it states right in it every person can vote at anytime by mail and it’s ILLEGAL to ask for any kind of ID…..

  3. Federalizing the vote has a lot of advantages and a lot of opportunity to close some huge security issues.

    HR1 makes the number one security issue Federal Law.


  4. I agree on important things

    Voter ID should be mandatory

    Mail in ballots should only be sent to registered voters who request them.

  5. Go back to how it was 20yrs ago in Pa. Paper ballot, hand count in front of an observer from each party sitting right next to you. Add in Photo ID and you have the safest system in the world.

    Mail in Ballots follow the Military Protocols, upon request, with ID, and a specific deadline.

  6. There are good points here. I think General elections absolutely should be organised at a Federal level. But it needs to be non party based. A national conversation about how to do this in a way that incorporates all the concerns people, Democrat, Republican and non-aligned have.

  7. I think General elections absolutely should be organised at a Federal level.

    That inverts the reality of the constitutional settlement.

  8. there needs to be a conversation…..

    But don’t worry no need, Nancy already has it written out. But we’ll have to Pass it to see what it says…. That’s HR-1

  9. That inverts the reality of the constitutional settlement.

    but it invokes the clause to fix a lack of confidence on the states level for standards. That case has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt.

  10. “there needs to be a conversation…..”

    So why are Republicans not having that conversation? Why are Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy etc… not saying that they want a deal. And they’d swing their support behind ending gerrymandering, and other things the Democrats want, in exchange for the Democrats listening on mail voting? It takes two to have a conversation. It isn’t just the Democrats shutting up shop here.

  11. There should never be unattended and unsecured drop boxes either.

    That should never be a partisan issue, but here it is.

  12. I think postal voting should be strictly limited to the armed forces serving overseas and people who are unable, through illness of disability, to physically cast their vote at a polling station. Here in the UK it is the responsibility of local authorities to maintain and update the Electoral Roll: before an election the local authority issues a polling card which bears a person’s name and is stamped with a number. The name and number are checked at the polling station, but there is no requirement to produce any other ID. To be honest I wouldn’t object if it became a requirement, but the UK has an aversion to ID cards. Oh yeah, I am also highly suspicious of governmental power-grabs, usually done to ;bring order to chaos’ or ‘to keep you safe.’

  13. I think postal voting should be strictly limited to the armed forces serving overseas and people who are unable, through illness of disability, to physically cast their vote at a polling station.

    That was the standard in most states Michael until Covid.

  14. I think for compulsory ID laws there should a free, easy to obtain ID card. Because many of the common types of ID are harder to get for some people, and if they have to show ID to vote then those barriers are effectively disenfranchising them. All to fix what is frankly a fake-problem.

  15. Does anyone know how postal votes from US citizens (non-military) living abroad are allocated back home? Americans move around a lot from state to state, so specifying one state where the absentee vote is to be booked seems a bit arbitrary.
    Does the absentee get to decide which state his vote should count in?

    It’s interesting in the context of the proposal in Ireland to extend franchise to members of the vast Irish diaspora. There are natural fears of the ex-Pat (geddit?) vote swamping the local vote, and expats having different concerns and interests, or none, compared to those living under the elected government. One suggestion was that an additional “constituency” be formed for the diaspora vote, with the number of seats to be filled remaining constant even if the expat vote increases or falls.

    A somewhat similar solution could be made if voting is extended to Northern Irish, which would probably require a few different constituencies, with the resulting vote having a somewhat lower weighting compared to the votes of people living under the laws enacted by the elected Dáil.

  16. I think the extending to Northern Ireland should happen, and I believe it is to try and prevent the extension of the franchise to Northern Ireland that the blueshirts tacked on the diaspora stuff. Personally I see the two issues as separate. Though if it passes it will only be for the presidential elections and not for the Dáil and so there won’t need to be constituencies per se.

    Beyond the Northern Ireland issue I’m not a fan of the idea of citizens who are not resident in the country having voting rights. Frankly a non-citizen living in the country has a greater stake in the governance of the country than a citizen living abroad.

  17. Seamus,

    it would probably start with Presidential elections but could extend to – or be forced to include, see link – Dail and Senad elections.


    I like the idea of separate constituencies.

    Yes, extending to the North is a different issue and I’m surprised this exclusion of Irish people born and living in Ireland hasn’t been challenged before. Again, new constituencies have to be formed as it’d be a bit odd to have campaigning for seats in constituencies outside the jurisdiction of Irish law.

    But either way, whether expats or Northerners, any extension would likely lead to a big increase in the SF vote, which is probably why the other parties will always drag their heels on the issue.

  18. Extending it to Dáil elections would actually prevent the need for a constitutional amendment. The reason for an amendment is that the constitution says that “every citizen who has the right to vote at an election for members of Dáil Éireann shall have the right to vote at an election for President”. The right to vote in Dáil elections being limited to residents of the state is contained in statute law (the 1992 Electoral Act), not in the constitution. If you amended the 1992 Electoral Act to include the North, and/or the diaspora, then you wouldn’t need a constitutional amendment to extend the Presidential vote.

    I agree about the increase for Sinn Féin. Most likely it will be boycotted by unionists in the North, as well as just not be of interest to most people living abroad. While undoubtadely you will have Irish people living abroad who are engaged to the issues back home, those abroad that will be most interested would likely be the plastic paddy types who are more likely to support the Shinners than anyone else. So Irish-America, when they vote, will vote Sinn Féin, while Sinn Féin would get a big push from the north.

  19. // who are more likely to support the Shinners than anyone else//

    Yes, you see that everywhere. I know a few guys here who I’d bet my last Euro voted for “blueshirt” when they were back home and now like to position themselves as ardent republicans, especially when drink is flowing and/or when there are pretty girls around.
    Mind you, the shoneen type is not completely absent either.

    There has also been a big change in the diaspora. Very many Irish people now see their stay abroad as a something temporary, they return home a lot and see their past and future in Ireland.

  20. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a booster of conspiracy theories with a track record of making racist statements, repeatedly endorsed violence against Democratic leaders and federal agents, according to a CNN review of her Facebook activity.
The Republican from Georgia filled her feed with extremist content for years before she was elected in November, becoming the first open supporter of the QAnon conspiracy theory to win a seat in Congress. In a January 2019 post, Greene “liked” a comment advocating “a bullet to the head” of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), according to a screenshot published by CNN’s KFile


  21. CNN & WP 2 known purveyors of Lies and Falsehoods based on anonymous innuendo is saying some one “Liked a comment” someone ELSE made….

    and that means what Comrade Phantom ?

    Do we send her for reeducation, or the stocks in the town square ? After of course she is removed from office, and her and her family are driven into destitution first,

    My god she “liked” a violent comment. Such behavior might even be a capital offense.

  22. Two Virginia police officers who photographed themselves inside the U.S. Capitol building during the January 6 riot have been fired. Sergeant Thomas Robertson and Officer Jacob Fracker are also facing federal charges.

    Robertson and Fracker were terminated from their jobs with the Rocky Mount police department on Tuesday, according to a statement from the town of Rocky Mount. The two were charged in federal court January 13 with unlawful entry into a restricted area and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds, and had been on unpaid leave from their jobs during a town review.


    Oh my, maybe there are some extremists in uniform after all. Maybe the concern is justified.

    Or- how unfair for these patriots to lose their jobs after acting against a “ tyranny “

    You make the call.

  23. Oh I will….

    You and your ilk are on a path that is going to lead to extreme violence and I would rather avoid it, but keep telling people they are going to be punished for thought and speech and you will get your wish. People will eventually start shooting people it’s human nature and has played out repeatedly throughout history.

    You want to prosecute thought…. history shows that every time a society reaches that point one of two events happen submission or violence. In this country it will be violence and unlike what you believe it won’t be one or two outrageous acts that will cause such outrage the nation will disarm… oh my look they all must be unarmed……

    No they’ll start shooting people and there will be outrage and over half the over 400 million firearms in legal possession will disappear over night and and added to the other 300 million firearms already in illegal circulation, then the country will descend into regional conflicts as it breaks into chaos and bloodshed that will be decades of guerilla terrorism that will cost millions of lives.

    The country will make Belfast in the 70s look like Woodstock.

    That is not the country I want, but it is the country you are going to get following the path it is now being led on by you and the democrat party.

    That is the only future this country has with the prosecution and persecution of people for Free Speech and THOUGHTS you don’t like.

  24. There is a wee lad who claimed to oppose the Trump insurrection, but who gets really angry if you criticize individual rioters, or those who incited the riot by calls to shoot or hang Democrats.

    If a rising star QAnon Congresswoman agrees in public that Nancy Pelosi should be murdered, that’s perfectly fine now. It’s just speech, the same thing as if she had written an Op Ed in support of virus relief.

  25. “Patriots are in the building. It’s beautiful.”

    And when Mr. Biden went on television to demand an end to the siege, one chatter asked, “Does he not realize President Trump called us to siege the place?”

    Another remarked, “Honestly, I think the patriots should have been allowed to go in there, grab those S.O.B.s and pull them out of the building and, you know, have an execution right there.”

    From a QAnon chat room, at the time of the riot

    Reporting by NYT , which includes some audio of actual statements.

    There are multiple reports of rioters or riot supporters saying that Trump called for the riot

    And endless comments of comment calling for executions of political opponents. Such talk is one step away from. “ lock her up “. And who said that?

  26. Patrick to this day continues to believe the activities of the House Un-American activities committee was correct and necessary. It was of course a very zealous and pure definition of penalising people by the State for their ‘unAmerican’ thoughts and beliefs. It would be interesting to see how he defends that policy with his clear and absolute abhorrence of such activity now.

  27. The US Communists that were outed then didn’t call for the execution of their opponents, AFAIK

    Many QAnon people have publicly called for just that, executions, as they in many cases directly called for the attack on the US government, directly said that Trump wanted it to happen.

    They are a real danger to the nation, and you can’t look away after January 6

  28. Very simple Colm.

    When the Soviet Union fell and we got a ton of cold war intel released in a gesture of good will toward the world by the russians at that time. It showed that everyone that the House Un-American Committee accused of being on the soviet payroll was.

    This new Un-American committee is not about exposing the influence of a Foreign Power this is the Bolsheviks wanting to cleanse “wrong thought” from the citizens of this country.

    The 2 are totally different.

    Now if the little Bartender wants to set up a Committee that looks at Elected officials and their families and question them about their ties to Foreign Governments and Foreign Corporations that would be of use.

  29. “It showed that everyone that the House Un-American Committee accused of being on the soviet payroll was.”

    No it didn’t. Of the 159 people targeted by Joe McCarthy the Venona project papers found that 9 of them had aided Soviet espionage efforts.

    “This new Un-American committee is not about exposing the influence of a Foreign Power this is the Bolsheviks wanting to cleanse “wrong thought” from the citizens of this country.”

    No it is about protecting America from all enemies, foreign or domestic.

Comments are closed.