Tag Archives: voting rights

The Push For Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants

Posted on by

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson posted the following on Twitter:

This is the first step toward granting voting rights to all of those who have entered our country illegally. They will not be required to go through the process of becoming a citizen, they will have no understanding of America and its Constitution. They will be a group of totally uneducated voters easily swayed by the lies of the mainstream media. They are here to replace the votes of the Americans who have become aware of the lies of the mainstream media. If amnesty happens, we will not recognize our country within three years.

When The Cancel Culture Doesn’t Pay

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The National Review posted an article about the San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ vote to end the boycott they began in 2016.

The article reports:

The board voted 7-4 to repeal a 2016 law that prohibited city employees from traveling to or doing business with companies in states that passed conservative laws. The board of supervisors first enacted the law in an effort to punish states that had enacted what it viewed as restrictions on LGBT rights after the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Since 2015, the board had amended the law to include states that, in its view, had limited voting rights and abortion access.

“It’s not achieving the goal we want to achieve,” said Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, the sponsor of the legislation to repeal the boycott. “It is making our government less efficient.”

The article notes the effect of the boycott:

The rollback comes after a report by the city administrator’s office found that no states ever appeared to change their own laws in response to the city’s boycott. A budget and legislative analyst’s report also found the city had done business with the states on the boycott list. A one-year period between mid-2021 and mid-2022 saw waivers for contracts and purchase orders totaling $791 million. Meanwhile, the budget and legislative analyst also found that the city had spent nearly $475,000 in staffing expenses to carry out the boycott.

The law “has created additional administrative burden for City staff and vendors and unintended consequences for San Francisco citizens, such as limiting enrichment and developmental opportunities,” according to the city administrator’s report. “Few, if any, other jurisdictions implement travel or contracting bans as expansive as the City’s.”

The article concludes:

Supervisors Shamann Walton, who previously told National Review that the San Francisco advisory committee’s recommendation that the city pay out hefty reparations to the city’s longtime black residents does not go far enough toward making things right, warned there could be “many unintended consequences of the repeal” and said as states are doubling down on their conservative laws he does not want to make it seem that the city is “not still fighting against these discriminatory practices and laws.”

You have to admire their chutzpah. Just for the record, requiring voter ID and cleaning up voting rights does not qualify as limiting voting unless you mean that it limits the votes of those not legally qualified to vote.

Is There Value In Being An American Citizen?

Posted on by

On Monday, Breitbart posted an article about new voting rlghts in Vermont. It seems as if some towns in the state has changed the rules.

The article reports:

A pair of Vermont towns are ready for their first local elections where foreign nationals will be allowed to vote, even offering ballots in foreign languages.

Montpelier, the state’s capital, and Winooski, located just outside of Burlington, are set to hold local elections where, for the first time, foreign nationals will be able to vote. In Montpelier, city officials said one foreign national has registered to vote while about eight foreign nationals have registered in Winooski.

…In June 2021, Democrats in the Vermont state legislature approved changes to the charters governing Montpelier and Winooski so that foreign nationals could vote in local elections.

Republican Gov. Phil Scott only vetoed the plan because it did not provide all foreign nationals across Vermont the right to vote. Legislators ultimately overrode his veto.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) is currently suing Montpelier and Winooski for allowing foreign nationals to vote, arguing that the policy violates Vermont’s constitution, which reserves voting rights for American citizens.

In November 2021, I posted an article reporting that New York City was going to let non-citizens vote in local elections. This is a really bad idea for two reasons–often non-citizens do not understand how our government works and maintaining two sets of voter rolls is an invitation to confusion. I hope that this idea loses in the courts. It is unconstitutional, but I am not sure all of our judges are familiar with the Constitution.

Hopefully This Won’t Work

Posted on by

Yesterday PJ Media posted an article about President Biden’s plans to get his legislative agenda passed.

The article reports:

Joe Biden is telling Democratic leaders in the House and Senate that he will lean on moderate Democrats in order to force passage of change to the Senate’s filibuster. He will also lobby hard to pass the voting rights bill that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer says he wants to vote on this week.

Biden and the Democrats want a “carve-out” for the electoral power grab known as the “For the People Act.” It would allegedly be a one-time exception to the filibuster and allow for a straight up-or-down vote on the bill, which Democrats mischaracterize as a “voting rights” bill.

Both Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have publicly come out against altering the filibuster and both have expressed doubts about the voter bill without substantial changes. But Biden apparently believes his powers of persuasion will work on them and other centrist Democrats.

Manchin will be a tough nut for Biden to crack. The West Virginia senator has been adamant about opposing any “tweaks” to the filibuster.

Make no mistake–this is a serious threat to our Republic. The U.S. Constitution specifically states that election policies are left to the states–they are not under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Unfortunately at this time, we have no guarantee that the Supreme Court will uphold the Constitution.

Rolling Stone recently reported:

Winning over the two Democrats who’ve declared their opposition to filibuster reform, Sens. Manchin and Sinema, won’t be easy. In April, Manchin wrote in an op-ed that he would not support tweaking or abolishing the filibuster, which he described as a “critical tool” to protect the interests of small and rural states like his. Sinema, for her part, likes to point out how often Democrats used the filibuster when they were in the minority during Donald Trump’s presidency. The filibuster, she wrote in June, “compels moderation and helps protect the country from wild swings between opposing policy poles.”

Yet Sinema has broadly endorsed the need for voting-rights reforms, and Manchin says “inaction is not an option.” Congressional aides and anti-corruption activists who support the For the People Act say Schumer’s strategy has been to give Republicans every opportunity to work with Democrats on a compromise bill, and to allow Manchin the space to lead those negotiations, if only to show that Republicans won’t support any version of pro-democracy reform that Democrats come up with. “We continue to see that the Republicans are not willing to negotiate in good faith on these fundamental issues to protect our democracy,” says Tiffany Muller of End Citizens United.

First of all, we are not a democracy–we are a constitutional republic. If you really want to get to the root of our current political problems, you might want to take a look at the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This opened the door for the corruption we currently see–the illegal campaign money, the earmarks, the runaway spending, the power grabs, etc. The election reforms the Democrats want will make it even easier to cheat.

 

Misplaced Priorities

Posted on by

On Friday, PJ Media reported the following:

On Friday, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that he would use the Department of Justice (DOJ) to target “new laws that make it harder to vote,” like the Georgia law President Joe Biden called “Jim Crow on steroids.” Garland falsely claimed that courts and intelligence agencies had “refuted” 2020 election integrity concerns, suggesting that the laws to restore election integrity are based on “disinformation” and even racism.

The article concludes:

The attorney general pledged that the DOJ would double the number of attorneys working on voting rights issues in the next 30 days. (Trump had left the department with 15 voting rights lawyers, about half the number under Obama.)

Contrary to Garland’s suggestions, voting integrity laws aim at restoring confidence in elections, not undermining it. The 2020 election involved a great deal of irregularities, from ballot drop-boxes with insecure chains of custody to the widespread mailing of mail-in ballots using outdated voter lists. Efforts to secure ballots from potential fraud are not based on disinformation or racism, but on legitimate concerns.

Yet it seems the Biden administration is intent on not just using baseless hyperbole to condemn election integrity efforts, but on weaponizing the DOJ to find pretexts to declare election-integrity measures illegal.

There are some real questions regarding the 2020 election. Those questions are being sorted out in various parts of the country. It is quite possible that massive fraud will be uncovered. What the remedy will be is anyone’s guess. It is quite possible that the news about voter fraud will be buried either by some new, breathtaking crisis or by simply not being reported. There is a group in Washington that has a vested interest in things remaining as they are. President Trump was a threat to that group. Currently there is a race between how quickly information on voter fraud can be verified and gotten out to the public and how fast those in New York State attempting to find President Trump guilty of something can come up with an excuse to arrest him.  Stay tuned.

 

Beware Of Executive Orders That Sound Good

Posted on by

Most Americans want everyone who is entitled to vote to be able to vote and have their vote counted. They also want to make sure that illegal votes are not counted. Somehow the rhetoric surrounding voting rights has overlooked the idea of registering and counting only legal votes. This is not overtly stated, but when you look closely, you find very little interest in maintaining accurate voting laws and making sure voters are who they say they are.

Townhall posted an article today about an Executive Order by President Biden.

The article reports:

President Joe Biden on Sunday signed an executive order aimed at expanding voting rights. It’s the Biden administration’s latest move to expand voting rights as they push the Senate to pass H.R. 1, the House Democrats’ bill to radically transform America’s election system, including prohibiting voter ID laws and mandating taxpayers fund political campaigns.

“It is the policy of my Administration to promote and defend the right to vote for all Americans who are legally entitled to participate in elections,” the executive order stated. “It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to expand access to, and education about, voter registration and election information, and to combat misinformation, in order to enable all eligible Americans to participate in our democracy.”

Article 1 Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.

Why are the Democrats in Congress trying to take this right away from the states?

Why is voter ID considered restrictive? You need an ID to do almost anything in America–receive medical treatment, open a bank account, board an airplane, buy liquor, take out a loan, etc.. Why not be required to show an ID to prove you are an eligible voter and that you are who you say you are?