The “For The People Act” is anything but.

“H.R. 1” represents the House of Representatives’ bill with the highest priority…, and it is obvious why.  

According to Betsy McCaughey, for The Boston Herald, “Nancy Pelosi’s top priority is to turn America into a one-party nation ruled by Democrats. Her bill HR 1 trashes the U.S. Constitution in an attempt to rig the system and make it virtually impossible to elect a Republican president or Congress again. It’s a power grab.”

The “For the People Act” has nothing to do with “The People,” and everything to do with “the democrats.”  

On a side note, why does it seem that everything the democrats are doing lately seems to “trash the U.S. Constitution?’

Have you noticed this?

Didn’t all of these people take an oath to preserve and protect The Constitution?

Just sayin’.  

“The bill eviscerates [“Eviscerates” is a strong word!] state voting laws and forces all the states to conform to a set of rules that includes automatic voter registration. Anyone who goes to a DMV or applies for food stamps, Medicaid or other social services, or attends a public college will be automatically enrolled to vote.”

It’s our right to NOT vote as well, isn’t it?

It’s our right to NOT have someone vote on our behalf without our permission, isn’t it?

Well, isn’t it?

“Noncitizens are obligated to identify themselves and opt out, but there are no criminal penalties if they don’t.”

The fact that in some states, “noncitizens” can get driver’s licenses, food stamps, Medicaid, other social services, or attend a public college, is a whole other issue…, but they should not be allowed to register to vote, and it should not be up to them to “opt out.”   

“From California to New York, Democrats are already pushing to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections. They see this as their roadmap to a future permanent majority.”

Maybe “yes,” and maybe “no.”

Just because democrats let them in doesn’t necessarily mean they want to see America devolve into the socialist and totalitarian nightmares they just came from.  

“HR 1’s bag of tricks also includes banning state voter ID requirements. Anyone can show up on Election Day to vote, registered or not, and simply sign a statement that they’re a legal voter.”

So, they’re saying voting is less important than:

Buying alcohol

Buying cigarettes

Sitting at a bar

Renting a car

Getting on an airplane

Adopting a pet

Renting a hotel room

Applying for a fishing license

Buying a cell phone

Visiting a casino

Picking up a prescription

Donating blood

Buying an “M” rated video game

Purchasing nail polish at CVS

Purchasing certain cold medicines

Attending the democrat national convention

Is that what they’re saying?

Yes…, that’s what they’re saying.   

“HR 1 is being sold as a reform to make voting easier.”

Well, HR 1 definitely does that!

“In truth, it makes cheating easier.”

And we’ve already seen evidence of that in the 2020 election.

“HR 1 compels states to send out absentee or mail-in ballots universally, favoring Democrats who tend to use this method.”

The republicans may be forced to use this “method” as well in future elections.

I mean, you’ve got to fight fire with fire, right?

We may see a day, in the future, where there are more votes tallied than people living in America!  

“It also forces states to count ballots that arrive by mail as late as 10 days after the election. Say goodbye to election night finality.”

“HR 1 also legalizes ballot harvesting, a practice many states are struggling to stop. A political organization pays a worker to walk through housing projects and neighborhoods, knock on doors, offer to help residents fill out the ballots they’ve received in the mail, and then submit the piles of completed ballots. It’s a recipe for fraud.”

“It’s also unconstitutional.”

“The authors of the Constitution worried that Congress would try to seize control of presidential selection using dirty tricks like those in HR 1. That’s why they acted to ‘to take the business as far as possible out of their hands,’ according to Charles Pinckney, a framer from South Carolina.”

“Congress, said Pinckney, ‘had no right to meddle’ in it. The framers provided in Article II, Sec. 1 that only state legislatures would have the power to determine how the president is chosen. No national rules.”

“But Pelosi has no qualms about trashing the Constitution to kneecap her opponents.”

There they go “trashing the Constitution, again.

“HR 1 also asserts Congress has the authority to make the District of Columbia into the 51st state. That would hand Democrats two more Senate seats, breaking the current 50-50 tie. Voter registration in D.C. is 76% Democratic and only 6% Republican.”

The recent election indicates the percentage is much higher than that, with over 92% of the votes going to democrats.

“Pelosi ignores that only a constitutional amendment can change the status or parameters of the district.”

“HR 1 also would expose supporters of conservative causes to disclosure and harassment. In 2013, then-President Barack Obama’s Internal Revenue Service tried to strong-arm tax-exempt tea party organizations into disclosing their donors. Pelosi’s bill would give that thuggish tactic the force of law, requiring organizations to disclose their donors.”

“Pelosi’s democracy-destroying bill will pass in the House, where Democrats have a majority [and have no problem with destroying democracy].”

“President Joe Biden has promised to sign it if it passes the Senate. So much for Biden’s unity pledge.”

And, because Illegitimate Joe just signs what they tell him to.  

“Under current Senate rules, 60 votes are needed to enact HR 1. Democrats don’t have them yet. It’s up to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to protect the 60-vote filibuster rule. He’s called the bill ‘the Democratic Politician Protection Act,’ and deplores it as a naked attempt to change the election rules to benefit one party.”

It’s really cringeworthy when we have to count on Mitch McConnell to do anything.

“The bill is just what you’d expect from Pelosi. But the Senate needs to rise to the occasion and protect honest, competitive elections — the foundation of our freedom.”

The RStreet.org website says,   

“H.R. 1 is likely the most consequential piece of election-related legislation in years and mostly in a bad way. Let’s be clear: it should be easier to participate in elections and easier to talk about elections. Anything that does the opposite is a bad idea.”

“As an organization, R Street stands strongly for the cause of political reform, and we will always support good policy. H.R. 1 is not good policy.”

The Heritage Foundation adds, about HR 1, that, “It would implement nationwide the worst changes in election rules that occurred during the 2020 election and go even further in eroding and eliminating basic security protocols that states have in place.”

“It would make it a criminal offense for a state official to reject a voter registration application even when it is rejected ‘under color of law’ [whatever that means] because the official believes the individual is ineligible to vote. It would also require states to allow 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to register; when combined with a ban on voter ID and restrictions on the ability to challenge the eligibility of a voter, this would effectively ensure that underage individuals could vote with impunity.”

“Require states to count ballots cast by voters outside of their assigned precincts, overriding the precinct system used by almost all states that allows election officials to monitor votes, staff polling places, provide enough ballots, and prevent election fraud.”

“Mandate no-fault absentee ballots, which are the tool of choice for vote thieves. It would ban witness signature or notarization requirements for absentee ballots; force states to accept absentee ballots received up to 10 days after Election Day as long as they are postmarked by Election Day; and require states to allow vote trafficking (vote harvesting) so that any third parties—including campaign staffers and political consultants—can pick up and deliver absentee ballots.”

“H.R. 1 would add a provision criminalizing ‘hindering, interfering, or preventing’ anyone from registering or voting, which is so vague and so broad that it could prevent providing any information to election officials about the ineligibility of an individual, such as an applicant not being a U.S. citizen.”

“Reduce the number of Federal Election Commission members from six to five, allowing the political party with three commission seats to control the commission and engage in partisan enforcement activities.”

“Authorize the Internal Revenue Service to engage in partisan activity. H.R. 1 would permit the IRS to investigate and consider the political and policy positions of nonprofit organizations before granting tax-exempt status, thus enabling IRS officials to target organizations engaging in First Amendment activity with disfavored views.”

“Limit access to federal courts for anyone challenging H.R. 1. The bill would prohibit the filing of any lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of H.R. 1 anywhere except in the District Court for the District of Columbia and would allow the court to order all plaintiffs and intervenors, regardless of their number (such as all 50 states), ‘to file joint papers or to be represented by a single attorney at oral argument,’ severely limiting the legal representation and due process rights of challengers.”

Wow, they have really thought of everything!

We ARE living in America, aren’t we?

These democrats seem hell-bent on dragging us into some kind of Nazi Germany scenario.

And they have the unmitigated nerve to call this the “For The People Act” on top of it all.

There is no question that the democrats are completely un-American and have no shame. 

No shame, whatsoever.     

I have many blogs out here regarding democrat voting shenanigans you can check out as well.  

The following blog links contain some of my suggestions to improve our voting process.

These would be things that should be included in HR 1 if the democrats were really interested in improving the process for “We The People.”                                                                                                                                                                                              

“It’s not ‘just’ one vote. It’s my one vote!”

https://mrericksonrules.com/2018/11/05/its-not-just-one-vote-its-my-one-vote/

and…,

‘“If the American people lose confidence in the integrity of our election system, we are one big step closer to our republic dissolving right before our eyes.’ – MrEricksonRules”

https://mrericksonrules.com/2018/11/15/if-the-american-people-lose-confidence-in-the-integrity-of-our-election-system-we-are-one-big-step-closer-to-our-republic-dissolving-right-before-our-eyes-mrericksonrules/

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment.  I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

The “fix” was obviously in.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court tossed out President Trump’s election lawsuit on everything BUT the merits of the case.

According to the Associated Press, “The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s lawsuit attempting to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the battleground state, ending [President] Trump’s legal challenges in state court about an hour before the Electoral College was to meet to cast the state’s 10 votes for Biden.”

“The President sought to have more than 221,000 ballots disqualified in Dane and Milwaukee counties, the state’s two most heavily Democratic [and most heavily populated] counties. In a 4-3 ruling, Justice Brian Hagedorn, a conservative writing for the majority, said the Trump campaign was ‘not entitled to the relief it seeks.’”

Okay…, first of all…, why is it important to note that Justice Hagedorn is supposedly a “conservative?”  Is that supposed to lend some credence to his opinion?

I guess so. 

“Hagedorn used a sports analogy when ruling against Trump, saying he waited too long to raise his complaints.”

‘“Our laws allow the challenge flag to be thrown regarding various aspects of election administration,’ Hagedorn wrote.”

He seems to assume everyone reading his ruling is familiar with American football, and the National Football League. 

Actually, I think that is quite culturalist and even misogynistic.

But that’s okay, as long as it’s a ruling against President Trump and conservatives.    

‘“The challenges raised by the [President’s] Campaign in this case, however, come long after the last play or even the last game; the Campaign is challenging the rulebook adopted before the season began.’”

As I have stated in earlier blogs, is it ever too late for justice to be served?

And you shouldn’t be looking at any “rulebook” adopted by anyone else other that the state’s legislature, which is solely given the rights to create the laws governing a state’s elections by The United States Constitution. 

“[President] Trump wanted to disqualify absentee ballots cast early and in-person, saying there wasn’t a proper written request made for the ballots; absentee ballots cast by people who claimed ‘indefinitely confined’ status; absentee ballots collected by poll workers at Madison parks; and absentee ballots where clerks filled in missing information on ballot envelopes.”

Please note that there is nothing in Wisconsin’s election laws, established by the legislature, allowing for any of this.

“The court ruled that [President] Trump’s challenge to voters who were indefinitely confined was without merit and that the other claims came too late.”

“Liberal justices Rebecca Dallet and Jill Karofsky, who sided with Hagedorn, wrote separately to emphasize that there was no evidence of fraud in Wisconsin’s election.”

‘“Wisconsin voters complied with the election rulebook,’ Dallet and Karofksy said. ‘No penalties were committed and the final score was the result of a free and fair election.’”

Even though these two wrote separately from Hagedorn, they sure seem to be writing from the same “playbook,” if you want to use football terminology.

“Karofsky blasted [President] Trump’s case during Saturday’s hearing, saying it ‘smacks of racism’ and was ‘un-American.’ Conservative justices voiced some concerns about how certain ballots were cast, while also questioning whether they could or should disqualify votes only in two counties.”

“Smacks of racism?!”

“Un-American?!

Please, Justice Karofsky, we don’t need an obviously biased and disingenuous lecture from you on top of your misguided and partisan decision regarding this case. 

Karofsky is the larger pictured justice on the right.

“Biden [supposedly] won Wisconsin by about 20,600 votes, a margin of 0.6% that withstood a Trump-requested recount in Milwaukee and Dane counties, the two with the most Democratic votes. Trump did not challenge any ballots cast in the counties he won.”

Oh really?!

That’s odd.

Why would he challenge the counties he won?

And a recount of the same illegal ballots is, of course, just going to produce the same results.

Yes, folks, the “fix” was obviously in.

It’s a real shame that many of these state supreme courts are now making their judgements based on politics rather than the law.

In many cases, our judicial branch of government has “sold its soul” to the politically corrupt neo-fascist manipulators in our country.   

“Justice” has now become what some liberal perceives it to be, or wants it to be, and not what it actually should be.  

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment.   I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

Excuse me, but WHAT’S “unfair” about the election?!

And WHO’S being “unfair” about the election?!

According to Joshua Q. Nelson of Fox News, “Jonathan Turley says Trump’s attacks on judges over election rulings are ‘unfair.’”

‘“There is a disconnect between the evidence and the relief being sought,’ Turley says”

Turley also adds that, “The odds are against Trump in flipping states.”

No kidding?

Well thank you very much, Captain Obvious!

Yes…, the odds are against The President…, especially when the fake news, liberal propaganda, mainstream media refuses to address any type election malfeasance, and the DOJ and the FBI are completely out to lunch as well.  

Please tell us, Mr. Turley, exactly when it was that the odds weren’t against President Trump regarding anything?! 

“George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley said on Monday that President Trump’s’ ‘attacks’ on judges over their decisions on the 2020 election dispute are ‘unfair.’”

Please, Mr. Turley, let’s not deflect the issue from a presidential election being stolen to your perceived unfairness of judicial treatment.

After all, haven’t we become a country that favors “victims?”

And aren’t President Trump and all of the legal voters in this last election the “victims” here?

‘“There is a disconnect between the evidence and the relief being sought,’ Turley told ‘Fox & Friends.’”

The only “disconnect” here is the “disconnect” between you and your democrat friends and the hard working, law abiding, American people.

“Turley said that although the Trump legal team provided evidence of ‘irregularities, unlawful orders, and thousands of votes that were not counted,’ none of it has ‘amounted to the type of numbers that would change the outcome of a given state.’”

Again, well, thank you very much, Professor Turley, for your astute determination of the cases here.

And, please, let’s not pretend that Professor Turley is some kind of unbiased purveyor of legal wisdom.

The only fair and balanced George Washington University Law Professor is an ex-George Washington University Law Professor.

Believe that.

What President Trump’s legal team has provided is a reason for some of these states in question to hit the pause button and at least have some of their voting systems and voting processes looked at.

I mean, it’s pretty hard for President’s Trump’s legal team to gather any hard evidence, besides the hundreds of affidavits documenting vote processing shenanigans, of course, if they are not allowed access to the voting machines, the actual ballots, and election workers.

‘“More importantly, these judges have balked at the idea of essentially negating millions of votes as a form of relief. And, in Pennsylvania, the courts said, look, these voters do appear to have been denied their right to vote; I’d rather count their votes than not count millions of others, and, that is the disconnect he’s facing,’ Turley said”

All I have to say to these judges is, either the votes were cast legally or they weren’t.

“Negating” fraudulent votes isn’t a bad thing, no matter how many of them there are.    

And who exactly was denied their “right to vote?”

Perhaps people who died prior to the Civil War. 

I mean, even the democrats had to draw the line somewhere!  

And you’d rather count these potentially illegal votes, which, in effect, cancels out my vote and thousands of others’ legal votes?

What about our rights, Mr. Turley?  

“President Trump blasted judges’ rejections of his legal challenges to 2020 election results and said he couldn’t be certain any of his cases would make it to the Supreme Court in his first interview since Election Day on Sunday.”

‘“We’re not allowed to put in our proof. They say you don’t have standing,’ Trump told ‘Sunday Morning Futures.’ ‘I would like to file one nice big beautiful lawsuit, talking about this and many other things, with tremendous proof. We have affidavits, we have hundreds and hundreds of affidavits.’”

You see, Mr. President, conservatives are held to a completely different standard, compared to the political establishment and the neo-fascist “deep state.”   

Perhaps if you could present a single anonymous whistleblower, you may have a better chance!

‘“You mean as president of the United States, I don’t have standing? What kind of a court system is this?’ Trump continued.”

A kangaroo Court, Mr. President!

A Kangaroo Court.

“Most recently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed a case Saturday night brought by Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., and a handful of other Republican voters who sought to overturn last year’s law creating no-excuse mail-in voting as well as halt further action in certifying Pennsylvania’s votes.”

“Judge Ken Starr said The President’s path to victory is fading despite ‘numerous’ examples of anecdotal evidence.”

“Turley again stated that Trump’s ‘attacks against the judges’ are “unfair.”

‘“They’re being attacked–the judiciary is being attacked by both Democratic and Republican leaders these days, but, they’re doing their job. They’re trying to rule according to the evidence.’”

Have you heard of any “Democratic leaders” attacking any judges, anywhere?

I sure haven’t.   

These judges should be trying to rule according to the actual election laws that are in place, not according to election “rules” adopted by partisan election officials and other activist judges.   

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment.   I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑