• Home
  • What Democrat One-Party Rule in U.S. Looks Like (Part II

What Democrat One-Party Rule in U.S. Looks Like (Part II

William L. Kovacs

February 2021

What Democrat One-Party Rule in U.S. Looks Like (Part II

Part I, “Unity Not Possible When Government Is in Overdrive” discusses the 52 Executive Orders (“EOs”) issued by President Biden in his first few weeks in office and how these wide-ranging directives will substantively change our legal system without any statutory changes or constitutional amendments. Part II explores how Democrats and their friends in the media will attempt to change the fundamental structure of the U.S. to achieve permanent, one-party rule.

The two major political parties have both sought one-party rule for decades but with little success. The American people have always have had enough smarts to stop them in the next election, usually due to political leaders ignoring commonsense.

But this time it may be different due to the horrific seizing of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The events of that day will be justification for using every power of government, and its friends in the media, to build a permanent one-party, Democrat ruled state. The building blocks are in place and set forth below.

order cytotec online no prescription Big tech, big censorship

Big tech detests Trump for his calls to repeal section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which gives it immunity from civil suit for any actions taken to “police” the Internet, including censorship. The January 6, 2021 riot, gave big tech the excuse needed to censor the speech of then president Trump and his conservative allies.

Days after the invasion of the Capitol, Big Tech, a group that poured hundreds of millions of dollars into helping Democrats win the 2020 election, launched a surprise attack on web content they deemed objectionable. Twitter permanently banned President Trump’s account, wiping out his contact with 88 million followers and banned thousands of conservative social media accounts. Google and Apple blocked Parler’s App from their stores, and Amazon Web Services denied Parler access to its cloud network. Parler was shut down. A swath of conservatives lost the ability to speak on the Internet, the nation’s new public square.

http://newpotatoboxes.co.uk/british-standards.php Big business, big labor implements a successful conspiracy to change voter perception of information

Big business, i.e., the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a traditional ally of Republicans, joined with the AFL-CIO and big tech, to take down Trump and conservatives. A Time Magazine article The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election, proudly claims victory in its account of the inner workings of a little-noticed cabal effort to “protect the election” from what they viewed as “disinformation.” The conspiracy touched every aspect of the election, from voting systems to lawsuits to ensure massive vote by mail, to pressuring social media companies to remove what they believe to be “disinformation.” The cabal’s goal was to secretly “…influence voter perceptions, change voting rules and laws, steer media coverage, and control the flow of information” [received by voters]. The cabal claims the conspiracy was “… not rigging the election; [it was] they were fortifying it.”

The cabal achieved its purpose – it changed the voting system by changing laws and regulations governing the election, generated negative media coverage of Republicans, and controlled the flow of information voters received about the election. To this day, social media continues its censorship of some conservative speech, including a lifetime-ban on Trump’s Twitter account. In a recent opinion piece by James Freeman of the Wall Street Journal, he notes “…that the most consequential use of this censorship tool in 2020 was an abusive blocking of true information” such as “… the New York Post’s reporting on the Biden family influence peddling” which was suppressed by Twitter and other media outlets.

buy stromectol pills Democrats seek to punish Republican members of Congress

The Democrat Speaker of the House claims her members are at risk of harm, and “the enemy is within the halls of Congress.” Democrats in Congress seek to punish members of the Republican party who exercised their right to object to electors under 3 U.S.C. sec.15, including expulsion. Democrats advocate for creating an enemies list containing the names of Trump supporters and deny them jobs in the private sector. A counsel for PBS even called for sending the children of Trump’s supporters to re-education camps. Katie Couric told Bill Maher that members of President Trump’s “cult” need to be “deprogrammed.” The Democrats’ obsession with purging former president Trump, those who worked for him, and even some who voted for him, will likely continue until Trump and his allies are cancelled.

buy Lyrica online india D.C. becomes a military state

26,000 national guard troops are brought to D.C. to protect the Capitol during the inauguration, about five times more than in Afghanistan and Iraq combined. Congressman Van Drew commented, “It looked like [Biden was] getting sworn in in Venezuela…” The military will leave 5,000 – 7,000 troops in D.C. and massive fencing around the Capitol, for several more months, at least. Moreover, the Department of Homeland Security (“D.H.S.”) issued a terrorism advisory that there is a “heightened threat environment across the United States that is likely to persist over the coming weeks.” D.H.S. admitted it has no information of any creditable plot.

Will DC be a perpetually occupied military zone to protect a government that fears its citizens? Is this the beginning of military control of the nation? Is this the new image of America to the world?

Investigative reporter, Glen Greenwald, cautions that fighting “domestic terrorists” presents dangers “…when governments, exploiting media-generated fear and dangers, arm themselves with the power to control information, debate, opinion, activism, and protests.”

Packing the Supreme Court to form a radical-left majority

Additionally, the president announced a commission to study reforming the U.S. Supreme Court, including the need for additional justices. The commission will be run out of the office of the White House counsel. Is this the first step to packing the court to dilute the active conservatives’ 5 – 4 majority? Is this the end of even the appearance of a neutral Supreme Court? Can a political Supreme Court uphold the rule of law?

D.C. Statehood

The DC mayor is demanding statehood as promised by the Democrats. Our Constitution allows Congress to admit new states into the Union by majority vote. The Democrat-controlled Congress supports it and has the votes to pass it. If Republicans launch a filibuster, Democrats can repeal it merely by changing the Senate rules as done by Senate Majority Leaders Reid and McConnell for judicial and cabinet-level appointments. Such a move would give Democrats two additional Senate seats and likely control of the Senate for decades. It would also position Democrats to admit additional Democrat states such as Puerto Rico.

Eliminate the Electoral College

Then there is the non-threatening sounding proposal “The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact” (“N.P.V.”). Under N.P.V., by agreement with other states in the compact, a state awards all its electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the popular national vote, notwithstanding who wins the popular vote in the respective states. The compact goes into effect when the states controlling the majority of electoral votes (270) join the compact. Fifteen states, representing 196 electoral votes, have already adopted the compact. The measure is still active in states having 97 electoral votes and controlled by Democrats.

Democrats have two years to install a one-party rule, or else?

Democrats have two years with control of the House, Senate, and presidency to transform the U.S. into a nation of one-party, rule, a type of rule common in many authoritarian countries.

If the Democrats fail to impose one-party power after forceful attempts to deny freedom of speech to many conservatives,  punishing duly elected members of Congress for exercising their statutory rights, rule by executive fiat, packing the Supreme Court, adding new states to ensure Democrats control the Senate, eliminating the electoral college without a constitutional amendment and opening the southern border to anyone who might be a Democrat supporter, Democrats will be soundly rebuked by the voters. The Democrat party will be the ninth political party to sink into oblivion.

Our Constitution, is a broad and vague document that can sanction freedom or permit one-party rule enforced by oppressive legislation, massive regulation and a political judiciary. Reform the Kakistocracy: Rule by the Least Able or Least Principled Citizens concludes by noting the U.S. has reached a fork in the road. Depending on the path it takes, “…posterity will reap the fruits of success or suffer the slide from being exceptional to experiencing the perpetual frustrations of mediocrity, growing poverty, and a dimmer future. The future is ours to create.”

Published first in The Libertarian Republic

  • Home
  • Not So Fast Pennsylvania: There are Limits on Judicial Power

Not So Fast Pennsylvania: There are Limits on Judicial Power

William L. Kovacs

November 2020

Not So Fast Pennsylvania: There are Limits on Judicial Power

Notwithstanding factual issues of fraud, dead people voting, and observers not able to observe, there is a real legal issue putting at risk all votes Pennsylvanians cast after the polls closed on November 3rd. An issue four U.S. Supreme Court justices indicate needs review. The facts are not in dispute. The legal question is whether Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court can extend the time for voting beyond that set by the state legislature?

It must first be noted the election was not called by any official government entity. It was called by CNN, a cable television channel. CNN awarded Biden twenty electoral votes, “making” him our 46th president. In 2000 CNN called the disputed election for Gore and had to withdraw its “call” in under 2 hours. Cable tv gave Gore 37 days to litigate his case.

Unfortunately for Pennsylvania, there is a federal Constitution that has supremacy over its courts and a state attorney general who tweets before the polls close, like the fix is in – “If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose.”

Pennsylvania voters cast over 6.6 million votes. Joe Biden is ahead by around 45,000 votes or about 7/10th of one percent. Every vote counts if it’s legal and received by the deadline set by the legislature.

In 2019 the Pennsylvania legislature passed what Governor Wolf called “the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years.” It expanded who could vote by mail and allowed voters to secure mail-in ballots as far out as 50 days before the election.

It also extended the deadline for election officials to receive absentee ballots, from 5 p.m. on election day to 8 p. m. November 3. What this clear legislative provision means, may determine who is our next president.

The state’s Democrat Party asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to extend the legislatively mandated deadline, by three days, for receiving mail-in ballots due to the pandemic related delays. Republicans opposed the extension request.

The Court extended the deadline for 3 additional days, until 5 p.m., November 6th. The court conceded that the judiciary “may not usurp the province of the legislature by rewriting [statutes]; the statute was unambiguous, constitutional on its face and not in need of interpretation. Notwithstanding such findings, the Court decided, due to the pandemic and postal mail delays, to balance broad language of the Pennsylvania Constitution (the electoral process in Pennsylvania is open and unrestricted to voters) against the mandate in the U.S. Constitution that state legislatures establish the times and manner of holding elections.

Using its balancing approach, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court asserted “Extraordinary Jurisdiction” to “[e]xtend the received-by deadline for mail-in ballots to prevent the disenfranchisement of voters.”

The Pennsylvania Republican Party sought a stay of the counting from the U.S. Supreme Court. The stay was denied on October 19, 2020, but four justices noted they would grant the application. As the “legal jockeying…intensified” the Republicans, on November 6, 2020, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to segregate the mail ballots delivered after election day. That evening Justice Alito ordered county boards to keep separate the ballots arriving after election day. He gave the state a day to respond.

It is unknown how many mail ballots were received between November 4 – 6, 2020. What is known is that the mail ballots in Pennsylvania were running 78% for Biden and that the margin of difference between Biden and Trump is around 45,000 votes. Using these numbers, if more than 60,000 ballots, out of 6.5million ballots, came in after the election, there a significant possibility that a U.S. Supreme Court reversal of the Pennsylvania court decision, could invalidate all votes received after November 3rd.

The U.S. Supreme Court should decide whether an admittedly unambiguous, constitutionally crafted statute, enacted by the state legislature to set the times and manner of elections, is the established election procedure; or whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has “Extraordinary Powers” to overrule the state legislature on setting the times and manner of elections?

While it is likely, Joe Biden will be the next president, the U.S. Supreme Court must address the Pennsylvania court’s claim to hold “Extraordinary Powers.” Either state legislatures set the time and manner of elections or they do not. This issue is capable of repetition. If the Supreme Court avoids this clear question of law, future state courts will claim “Extraordinary Powers” to control elections. The chaos resulting from such a decision will undercut the legitimacy of our electoral process.

  • Home
  • Can Voting Really Change the Country?

Can Voting Really Change the Country?

William L. Kovacs

October 2020

Can Voting Really Change the Country?

It is highly likely that our “exalted candidates” for president will screw up the 2020 election.

Republicans want us to vote early (by mail) and often (in-person). They sue states allowing for extra time to count mail-in ballots so they can limit the votes counted.  Democrats want to mindlessly flood the U.S. with tens of millions of blank ballots that can be completed by anyone. Still being followed is the “sage advice”  of long-time Chicago mayor William Hale Thompson, “vote early and often.” Both sides believe chaos works to their advantage.

The chaos theory, the randomness of a chaotic system produces underlying patterns that self-organize, does not work in politics. All it produces is chaos. The chaos produces doubt in democracy. A recent Yahoo poll finds only 22% of Americans think the 2020 presidential election will be “free and fair.”

The monopoly control of voters by the two major parties has given us big government, low taxes for the wealthy, massive wealth inequality, corporate welfare, building bigger and bigger war machines, and now such polarization that whoever wins the next election will be considered illegitimate by half the electorate.

Voters who do not wear R or D letters around their necks are told not to waste their vote on a Libertarian, Green, Constitution, or any other minor party since they can’t win. Accepting this thinking means living, in perpetuity, in a kakistocracy, rule by least able or least principled citizens.

We can do better. Voting is a tool that allows for a peaceful revolution!  Too many people believe voting does not change the policy of the nation. Quoting Lawrence of Arabia, “Nothing is written.” If a ragtag army can overthrow King George, overthrowing the Ds and Rs controlling the kakistocracy is possible. But first people have to vote.

A brief history of voting places its importance in perspective

The right of citizens to vote is merely a cryptic mention in the text of the Constitution, requiring the House of Representatives “…be chosen every second year by the people of the several States.” Initially, citizens did not vote for Senators; they were elected by state legislatures. Citizens still do not vote for the president—that is the job of the electors, whose vote is determined by state legislatures. Judges were never elected. They are political appointees.

The U.S. Supreme Court explains, the Constitution “does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” Politicians and courts determine who is qualified.

“The U.S. Constitution did not originally define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible.” After several centuries of living under our Constitution, we the people are still expanding the list of “qualified voters,” and by extension, our rights.

Voting is really a question of power – if one can vote, one can influence how the government works. Since the beginnings of this nation, those possessing the legal right to vote fought to preserve their power to rule by preventing others from securing the right to vote.

Initially, only white men with a certain amount of property could vote. Beginning in the 1820s, property requirements began to recede for all white men, including white immigrants. After the Civil War, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution abolished slavery and guaranteed citizenship to all born or naturalized citizens.

These rights were short-lived in that after the election mess of 1876 (Tilden v. Hayes). Democrats traded the presidency away for the removal of northern troops in the South, thereby disenfranchising free blacks through poll taxes, literacy tests, Jim Crow laws, Black Codes, and military-style hate armies such as the White League, Red Shirts, and the KKK.

In the late 1880s, Native Americans were gradually given citizenship and the right to vote. In the 1920s women secured the right to vote. In the 1940s Chinese immigrants were given citizenship and the right to vote.

In the 1960s, with the enactment of new Civil Rights laws, many of the restrictions on black voting were made illegal. Eventually, with the draft and the war raging in Viet Nam, the 26th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified giving citizens 18 to 21 years of age the right to vote. The chant that highlighted to issue – “Old enough to fight, old enough to vote.”  In 1986, citizens living overseas on military bases were given the right to vote.

The struggle for voting rights continues

The struggle to secure the right to vote continues today over access to polling stations, long lines and limited hours to vote, the security of mail-in ballots, voter identification, accommodations for the disabled, seniors, the homeless, felons, and for minorities—especially in poorer communities.

Historically, it is the government that restricts voting. Voting is a struggle because it is immensely important to those holding the power to rule us. The outcome of voting determines who will make and enforce our laws, the amount of tax we pay and who pays, who gets services, who goes to jail, and who remains free for committing the same “crime”.

The real struggle to change the system is to persuade people to be relevant and vote

Polls report political Independents represent between 38% – 42% of voters. There are more Independents than Republicans. But this is misleading. According to a Pew study, most so-called, Independents lean toward one of the two major parties. Only 7% of Independents do not express a partisan leaning.

The good news, in the Pew survey, for third-parties, is that Independents generally are more negative about political candidates and the two major parties. “About 24% of Democrat leaners and 27% or Republican leaners view both parties unfavorably, as do 37% of those with no partisan leaning.”

The unexplored gold mine of millions of new voters

The real voter gold mine, however, is to focus on those who do not vote. Polls tell us 71% of likely voters believe the U.S. is on the wrong track. Yet, in 2016 only 139 million citizens voted out of 250 million citizens of voting age—a 55.7% turnout. That means 111 million eligible voters did not vote. The U.S. ranks 31 out of 35 developed countries in voter turnout.

Pew reports a more acute concern; nearly 51 million citizens of voting age, nearly one-in-four eligible to vote, had not registered. Survey studies attribute this apathy to it being too hard to register (i.e. it requires work and time); a lack of a college degree; the two major parties so dominating the political landscape that voting is fruitless; and, there are so many elections in the U.S. that voters are suffering burnout. Poor excuses for a person remaining irrelevant.

Can anything be done?

It is hard to imagine in the era of Big Data, there have not been numerous studies of why over a hundred million voters are disengaged? The Knight Foundation’s recent study, The 100 Million Project, supplies much of the missing information. It is a massive study surveying 12,000 chronic non-voters nationally and in 10 swing states. It is a study that anyone interested in changing the direction of the country must-read. As for third-parties, understanding the study opens the door to future growth. We all know in 2016, Hillary Clinton received 66 million votes, Trump received 63 million. The study views the election differently: Trump received 27. 3% of the popular vote, Clinton 28.5%, and those not voting received 41.3%.

The extraordinary content of the study will be discussed in a later article. Suffice it to say, however, there are such a countless number of votes available, anyone interested in changing the course of the nation must find ways to engage the disengaged voter.

  • Home
  • Election 2020: Tortuous Road Through Electoral College to White House

Election 2020: Tortuous Road Through Electoral College to White House

William L. Kovacs

September 2020

Election 2020: Tortuous Road Through Electoral College to White House

Election 2020, a mix of pandemic, reckless musings by presidential campaigns, uncoordinated federal and state election laws, and ballot litigation, promises us a ring-side seat to watch sausage being made. Like Bush v. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court will be invited to decide a political fight or a few political fights.

Unless one candidate wins by a large margin, 2021-2024 will be a continuous fight over legitimacy, no matter who wins. George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump were considered illegitimate by some portion of the nation. This time, half the nation may believe the next president illegitimate.

Forget Russian interference, there are no algorithms for gaming the outcome of the electoral college process. It was designed by compromise, not logic. The electoral college, like the play Shear Madness, allows for many endings. We need to let the solid judgment of the Founders compromise play out.

A candidate securing 270 electoral votes is the next president.

Disputed elections, however, can have surprise endings. Election disputes usually arise when one candidate has a small vote lead but the other candidate alleges that if certain votes are counted, he/she would win. With surveys estimating 80 million people voting by mail; each state has different deadlines for counting votes, it’s likely deadlines will be missed causing challenges to slates of electors.

The determining factor in 2020 is whether disputes can be resolved in 35 days after the election, i.e. before December 8, 2020. If disputes are resolved within that time period, the selection of electors is “conclusive” and must be accepted by the next Congress, starting January 3, 2021.

Electors from states with unresolved disputes will be resolved by Congress in accordance with federal statutes.  In separate proceedings, each House must decide which set of electors to certify. If the House and Senate agree on a slate of electors, the slate is certified. If the House and Senate cannot agree, the electors certified by the Governor of the state are counted.

After certifying contested elector slates, Congress counts the electoral votes. If one of the candidates receives 270 electoral votes, that person shall be president. If no person has a majority of electoral votes, the House, voting by state, each state having one vote, votes to elect a president. The person receiving votes from a majority of states is president.

Which party benefits from this dispute process? Currently, Democrats control the House however, Republicans in Congress hold majorities in 31 state delegations and 26 governorships. In seven swing states (AZ, FL. IA, MI, MN, PA, WI), Democrat’s hold majorities in 4, Republican’s 2, and PA is tied. Republican governors in swing states hold a 4-3 advantage. Guessing the ending is Shear Madness!

There is no time frame for completing the process, thus the need for the Presidential Succession Act which establishes a line of succession to ensure the nation is never without a president.

Notwithstanding electoral disputes, President Trump’s term ends noon, January 20, 2021.

In electing a president, there is a role for electors, state legislatures, governors, and Congress. There are, however, according to Professor Tokaji, “…no federal laws allowing judicial contest proceedings over disputed federal elections.”

Notwithstanding the established constitutional and statutory process, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore, usurped Congress’ power to elect the president, when it blocked the Florida Supreme Court’s order authorizing recounts. Florida’s initial vote count gave Bush 1,784 more votes than Gore. The margin of victory was so narrow, state law required an automatic recount. Gore sought a manual recount. The Secretary of Elections, a Republican, denied the recount request. The Florida Supreme Court extended the recount deadline. Bush appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which vacated the order of the Florida Supreme Court; ruling Florida’s order was standardless, violating the Constitution’s equal protection clause.

Even if Florida missed the safe-harbor deadline, and submitted competing electoral slates to Congress, Bush would have been elected president. Both Houses of Congress were controlled by Republicans. Even if there was a disagreement between the House and Senate, federal law mandates the slate certified by the governor, be counted. Governor, Jeb Bush would have certified George W. Bush electors.

In 2000, the Supreme Court disrupted constitutional and statutory procedures, used by states and Congress, to elect presidents. In 2020 the court again could be asked to set aside the same procedures. Notwithstanding the court’s lofty language, one-half the voters will believe it is manipulating words to hide its true intent – accumulating power as the nation’s super-legislature.