Saturday, January 19, 2019

LINDSEY GRAHAM HAS HARSH WORDS FOR DEMS WHO MIGHT MAKE NEXT SCOTUS CONFIRMATION UGLY

LINDSEY GRAHAM HAS HARSH WORDS FOR DEMS WHO MIGHT MAKE NEXT SCOTUS CONFIRMATION UGLY

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham had harsh words on Sunday for Democrats who might balk at potential replacements for any upcoming Supreme Court vacancies.
“They should have thought of that before they changed the rules,” he said.
WATCH:
In light of the recent health concerns surrounding Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, pundits and even the White House have begun to take “gingerly preparations” for the possibility that there may be another vacancy to fill during President Donald Trump’s time in office.
“Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace asked Graham about the potential for another disastrous confirmation hearing, saying, “if you got Donald Trump — again, this is if — you have Donald Trump replacing a liberal icon like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, isn’t that a formula for — I mean, doesn’t that make the Kavanaugh hearings look like a tea party?” (RELATED: Lindsey Graham Explodes On Senate Committee Over Kavanaugh Process)
“They should have thought of that before they changed the rules,” Graham fired back, referencing former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s invocation of the nuclear option for judicial nominees. (RELATED: As Kavanaugh Hearsin Looms, One Senate Democrat Regrets Abolishing Filibuster)
“They try to destroy conservative judges. This decision by Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer may come back to haunt them but I am dead set on making sure it is a conservative nominee,” Graham continued, reminding Wallace that when Democrats were in power, he had voted to confirm Obama nominees Sotomayor and Kagan. “And elections have consequences. The rules of the Senate were changed not by me, by them, and we had to do it on the Supreme Court because they would not give us any votes to nominate anybody and Kavanaugh was a fine man, they tried to destroy him. All this is going to come back to haunt them one day.”

Friday, January 18, 2019

MOST COLOSSAL GREEN WEENIE OF ALL TIME: THE GREEN NEW DEAL

MOST COLOSSAL GREEN WEENIE OF ALL TIME: THE GREEN NEW DEAL

BY STEVEN HAYWARD IN CLIMATEGREEN WEENIE AWARD
Okay, I’m managing to stifle my non-stop laughter at the “Green New Deal,” sobered partly by the realization that our coveted Green Weenie Award is not big enough to cover the serial madness that will be the Green New Deal once the specifics of it start to take shape in actual legislative proposals. Right now it is at the vague generalization stage.
Except that environmentalists are making clear what they don’t want, and it turns out to be just about anything that might actually work as scale to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. From Grist:
Congress is currently preoccupied with a fight over Trump’s plan for a $5.7 billion border wall, but hundreds of environmental organizations are laser-focused on defining the Green New Deal. And they think it’s time Capitol Hill got on board with their plan.
On Thursday, 600-plus groups including 350.org, Greenpeace, and the Sunrise Movement sent members of the U.S. House a letter with a list of carbon-cutting steps. . .
Wait—stop the tape! Did you say “600-plus [environmental] groups”? (Actually the letter lists 626 in all.) I didn’t even know there were that many environmental groups. Isn’t that a hugely wasteful and duplicative use of scarce resources? (Swap out “recycled” for “duplicative” and problem solved—ed.)
But that’s not the most amazing part. This is, from the actual letter itself:
We will vigorously oppose any legislation that: (1) rolls back existing environmental, health, and other protections, (2) protects fossil fuel and other dirty energy polluters from liability, or (3) promotes corporate schemes that place profits over community burdens and benefits, including market-based mechanisms and technology options such as carbon and emissions trading and offsets, carbon capture and storage, nuclear power, waste-to-energy and biomass energy.
As Roger Pielke Jr. comments, this is like wanting action on disease but opposing vaccines.
In fact, this and other features of the letter went too far for the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, which did not sign it.  So make that 628 environmental groups, if you’re keeping count.
By the way, if you want to get a good laugh, read the whole letter. It’s bonkers. And savor the complete list of the 626 environmental groups at the end. They’d fit in well at the Mos Eisley cantina.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/01/most-colossal-green-weenie-of-all-time-the-green-new-deal.php

We Need To Retoxify Masculinity

We Need To Retoxify Masculinity
Kurt  Schlichter
Let’s be clear: My pronouns are “he,” “his,” and “stop being creepy weirdos.”
Okay, maybe the last one isn’t a pronoun, but then again, I’m a man and if I want an insulting string of words directed at the nattering nabobs of gender neutrality to be a pronoun, it is a pronoun. And if you don’t like it, fight me.
We need more masculinity, and the more toxic the social justice warriors think it is, the better.
Bizarrely, now shaving companies are allying with the SJWs in an Axis of Irritants. Gillette is channeling campus gender studies dorks to try to sell you razors. They all think you should soften up, get in touch with your feelings, and submit. 
I say tighten up, let your righteous fury flow through you, and tell them all to kiss your Schumer.
Much as I advocate global warming, I am a strong proponent of toxic masculinity. It’s also known as “masculinity.”

Risk-taking.
Ferociousness.
Independence.
These are the qualities the SJWs want to wring out of us. Why? Because these are the qualities they cannot overcome. They want us weak, passive and obedient. That’s how they get power. Some bloated Trigglypuff screaming about the male gaze can’t force us to do anything. Sure, a lot of them have weight on us, but if we laugh at them and simply say “No” to their demands, they’re stuck. Are they going to go get a rifle and make us? 
Nope. They have to talk us into surrendering, or really, pester us into surrendering. Which means talking us out of the uppity, aggressive, nodamns-given masculinity that is the last obstacle to their fussy, naggy domination.
Don’t be fooled by the “toxic” qualifier – allmasculinity is toxic to these human weebles. What they call “toxic” is really the essence of freedom. It’s toxic all right, but to their goals, not ours. Masculinity means freedom from them and the puffy, non-binary utopia they dreamed up because that’s the only world in which such losers could be anything more than a sorry punchline.
It’s a War on Testosterone, and we’re culturally surrounded. But that’s awesome. As Toxic Male Icon and Army hero, General Anthony McAuliffe of the 101 Airborne put it at Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge, “Men, we are surrounded by the enemy. We have the greatest opportunity ever presented an army. We can attack in any direction.” And Marine legend and Toxic Male “Chesty” Pullersaid something similar: “We're surrounded. That simplifies our problem of getting to these people and killing them." By the way, General Anthony McAuliffe, when the krauts demanded he surrender, responded, aptly, “Nuts!”
Now, if that last paragraph is incomprehensible to you, your masculinity is in a dire state and you need some re-toxification stat. Grab some non-craft beer, some ribs, and go watch Where Eagles Dare on Netflix. After that emergency treatment, find a man who with whom to go shoot guns and speak of brave deeds done in the face of America’s enemies. This will begin your recovery.
Am I saying men and women are different? Yes. Of course, so do the SJWs. They just want to eliminate those differences because those differences are an obstacle to their power. Embrace who you are, man or woman. Men and women are complimentary, the weaknesses of each compensated for by the strengths of the other. 
Being a man does not mean being a sad, hairy, lumpy version of a women. Nor does being a woman mean being a smaller, baby-having man. Being your gender is part of who you are, and by erasing that they seek to change you from who you are into who they want you to be: A neutered drone.
And “toxic femininity” is next on their target list.
The answer to the attack on toxic masculinity is to recommit to what they label “toxicity,” because what they call “toxic masculinity” is not about criminality or being a jerk. It’s about the basic premise of being a man, the role of builder and destroyer, engineer and warrior. They want to take what makes you special from you, so all you have are the scraps they choose to give you. And then they will own you.
Recommended Oh, You Bet The Pelosi Entourage Was Not Happy When Trump Torpedoed Her Brussels Trip Matt Vespa
Do you want to be owned? 
Cue the SJWs liars to hop in to say that praising masculinity means celebrating rape and abuse and mindless criminality and mayhem. But everything leftists say is a lie, and so is this. The answer to rape and abuse and mindless criminality and mayhem is, of course, more masculinity – the confrontation of evil, and its destruction, by righteous force. And righteous force is a masculine notion.
When some thug who didn’t get the memo about hugging is breaking down the door to get you, do you want some neckbeard sissy with a disposable Gillette standing by your side, or a toxic male with a 12-gauge Mossberg loaded with buckshot racking in a shell?
See, the vast majority of the world does not have the time or inclination for this kind of frivolous campus pap. The real world is hard and ugly, not the soft, safe and secure urban zone cleared and protected by the toxic males (and females – there are gloriously toxically masculine women too) in uniform that these SJWs despise. Toxic masculinity created a safe space here in the west where fundamentally silly people can freely express these ridiculous notions. But out there, there are real monsters, not mere childish boogeymen like “manspreaders.” And the only thing that keeps them at bay are those infused with toxic masculinity (some of them women) with bayonets. I talk a lot about a world where men give up on being men in my latest novel, Wildfire (and the earlier People’s Republic and Indian Country), which detail a blue America bereft of freedom in large part because it is bereft of masculinity. 
Don’t let it happen.
Buy guns.
Drink beer.
And tell the SJWs to go to hell.
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2019/01/17/we-need-to-retoxify-masculinity-n2539123

Reagan Had Only One Warning

 in His 1989 Farewell Address

Former President Ronald Reagan in 1991. (Gary Cameron/Reuters)
He worried that Americans were losing a sense of ‘informed patriotism.’
Ronald Reagan was characteristically upbeat and optimistic when he addressed the American people for the final time as president 30 years ago this past Friday. His farewell address to the nation is best known for his vivid description of just what he’d had in mind all those times when he invoked America as “a shining city on a hill”:
In my mind, it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors, and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That’s how I saw it, and see it still.
But for all of his optimism, Reagan did leave his audience with one clear warning for the future. He said the country needed “an informed patriotism.” He greatly feared that we were not doing enough to foster it.
“Are we doing a good-enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world?” Reagan bluntly asked.
When he was young, the nation’s youth “were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American,” he noted. “And we absorbed, almost in the air, a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions.” Young people learned those lessons from family, in classrooms, and through popular culture.
The Gipper worried that we were not handing down to future generations a responsible love of country. “Parents aren’t sure that an unambivalent appreciation of America is the right thing to teach modern children,” he said. “Well-grounded patriotism is no longer in style” for those media figures who direct the course of popular culture.
“We’ve got to teach history based not on what’s in fashion but what’s important,” he urged parents and teachers. “If we forget what we did, we won’t know who we are. I’m warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit.”
We’ve had three decades to observe just how prophetic and accurate Reagan’s warning was. Study after study has shown the shocking ignorance of both young people and adults about American ideals, history, and institutions. In 2017, a poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center showed that only one-quarter of respondents could name all three branches of government. More than one-third couldn’t name any First Amendment rights.
But ignorance isn’t the only threat to the understanding that Americans have of their country. In 2017, the National Association of Scholars released a report entitled “Making Citizens: How American Universities Teach Civics.” As The College Fix reported, Making Citizens suggests that “left-leaning professors have transformed the teaching of traditional civics with an emphasis on activism, creating a pipeline of students eager to serve the goals of secular-progressive causes.” The report’s authors note that instead of teaching “students the foundations of law, liberty, and self-government,” colleges teach them “how to organize protests, occupy buildings, and stage demonstrations.”
Perhaps it’s too much to expect that public schools today can go back to formally teaching students about representative government, the separation of powers, and landmark Supreme Court cases, but at least we should insist that they sponsor and encourage debates in which advocates of traditional civics from outside groups can help foster a sense of civic engagement.
Reagan himself was far too practical to believe that the job of reintroducing the study of self-government could be left to the schools. “All great change in America begins at the dinner table,” he said in his farewell address. “So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven’t been teaching you what it means to be an American, let ’em know and nail ’em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.”
It is also absolutely necessary if we are to have any success in our effort to “make America great again.” “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction,” Reagan reminded us. “We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”

Thursday, January 17, 2019

WE THE PRESS

WE THE PRESS

Frank Bruni, formerly the New York Times’s White House reporter and now a columnist for the paper, has a long, long op-ed that is unintentionally revealing. It is headlined, “Will the Media Be Trump’s Accomplice Again in 2020?” As though the press were pro-Trump in 2016! “We have a second chance. Let’s not blow it.” A second chance to help a Democrat beat Donald Trump.
Bruni’s piece displays a remarkable lack of self-knowledge. Republicans should be happy to note that he still has no idea why Trump won in 2016: he thinks Hillary was a fine candidate, and it was the press’s fault for not being sufficiently anti-Trump.
Through the first half of 2016, as Trump racked up victories in the Republican primaries, he commanded much more coverage than any other candidate from either party, and it was evenly balanced between positive and negative appraisals — unlike the coverage of Clinton, which remained mostly negative.
The press, including the Times, promoted Trump during the primary process because they thought he would be a weak candidate, and helping him to the nomination would guarantee Hillary’s victory. Since he won the nomination, the press’s coverage of Trump has been the most relentlessly negative of any politician in American history. The Times’s own coverage has been obsessively–almost comically, in a black sort of way–hateful.
Bruni’s arrogance when he describes the role of the liberal press–which he consistently refers to as “we”–is breathtaking:
Above all, it [the liberal press’s “success or failure”] will have an impact on who takes the oath of office in January 2021. Democracies don’t just get the leaders they deserve. They get the leaders who make it through whatever obstacle course — and thrive in whatever atmosphere — their media has created.
That is the function of the press–to create an “obstacle course” sufficient to defeat President Trump.
The funniest thing about Bruni’s column is that, for expertise on how to cover a presidential election, he turns to…Dan Rather! Seriously:
“The shadow of what we did last time looms over this next time,” the former CBS newsman Dan Rather, who has covered more than half a century of presidential elections, told me.
Bruni uses Rather as a Greek chorus, the voice of wisdom. Without irony.
Bruni’s theme is that the press needs to stop paying attention to the Trump spectacle and instead focus on substance. He doesn’t mean it, though. He certainly doesn’t have in mind talking about Trump’s strong economy, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, reduced regulations, foreign policy successes or judicial appointments. On the contrary, this is the kind of thing he has in mind:
I think that we’ve improved since then, and all along our efforts have included significant in-depth reporting. The Times’s acquisition and exhaustive analysis of confidential financial records of Trump’s from the 1990s — and its conclusion, in an epic story published in October, that he used questionable schemes to build his wealth — is a sterling example.
Heh. If Bruni thinks that is a “sterling example” of how the liberal press can defeat President Trump next time around, I can already hear the GOP cheers–“Four more years!”

The Left Won’t Stop At Alex Jones. The Slippery Slope Is Real, And We’re On It

The Left Won’t Stop At Alex Jones. The Slippery Slope Is Real, And We’re On It

They do not want to compete in a marketplace of ideas. Their goal is to silence dissenting voices.
Jesse Kelly
Ever watch “The Dick Van Dyke Show?” My folks used to put it on the TV for me when I was a kid. It was good comedy and harmless fun. What you may not have noticed about the show was the two main characters (a married couple) slept in SEPARATE beds in the same room. Obviously not an accurate portrayal of most marriages, the exception being Anthony Weiner’s, but in the early 1960s anything more than that would have been deemed inappropriate for public consumption. When public views on morality started shifting later that decade and television shows started getting a little more risqué, there were immediate cries that this would be a slippery slope. There were concerns that allowing even the slightest moral degradation of Hollywood would inevitably end in Caligula-style debauchery.
The people who warned of this slippery slope were laughed off. But today, “Sex and the City plays on regular cable with brief interruptions so Cialis can run commercials. So, about that slippery slope …
Sorry to disappoint you modern day Puritans, but this is not an article about the Sodom and Gomorrah Sunday night TV lineup and your potential for turning into a pillar of salt. It is about the tendency of some men to deny the existence of a ravenous left and their insistence that the slippery slope is something of a myth. It is anything but a myth. The slippery slope is how the left imprints their agenda into our culture. They know many on the right have little stomach for a fight about the ridiculousness of separate marriage beds. They know once they get momentum you’ll one day have to explain to your six-year-old what “dominatrix” means.
The federal income tax was established in 1913. (The government has not always stolen a cut of your paycheck before you get it.) There were warnings then about where that kind of sticky-fingers governing would end. The rates were 1 percent. Today the rates are almost 40 percent. In the 1930s, President Roosevelt was pushing for Social Security and folks on the right were warning of socialism. Social Security was then intended to be a temporary relief program. Today it’s a permanent retirement program for many and it’s also 14 percent of our $21,000,000,000,000 debt. Yesterday conservatives were warning about the left’s takeover of public schools and where it would lead. Today students are taught the evil of Trump’s immigration policies and football coaches lose their jobs if they pray on the field with their teams.
Many on the left and the right gave a loud cheer last week when Alex Jones was banished from Facebook. Twitter later suspended him. While it is not surprising to see the jackals on the left cheer at the burning of books, one would hope folks on the right would look in the mirror and realize their time is coming soon. The leftists will not stop (and did not stop) at nutty Alex Jones, because they do not think you are much different from him. You rightly think your belief in immigration enforcement is much different than his disgusting conspiracy theory about Sandy Hook. But you must understand the left thinks you are both equally vile. They just knew Jones was the weak member of the herd. They could pick him off as a test run. Next they’re coming for you.
But we didn’t get a unified message of support from the pinky-out people on the right. We were scolded for defending Jones. They sang so sweetly into the left’s ears: “Alex Jones is icky. And there is no slippery slope. And you should frankly be censored anyway, if you don’t at least have a Master’s degree.”The same people who ceded control of public education, the federal bureaucracy, the media, movies, and music to the left have once again found another hill not worth dying on. “It’s only social media,” they say. Yeah, fear not. Around 2.5 billion people use Facebook and Twitter. What’s the worst that can happen if we just let the left have them?
While this denial of the slippery slope is frustrating, it is also understandable if you understand the nature of man. Very few people in this world actually enjoy fighting. It is much easier on the mind to just avoid a fight. That is why so many on the right ignore the obvious truths staring them in the face. “It’s only Alex Jones” is not necessarily something they believe to be true.
“It’s only Alex Jones” is a comforting blanket. It’s the child who closes his eyes and covers his ears in the naïve hope that the monster disappears if you can’t see or hear him. But the monster does NOT disappear. And it is most definitely NOT just Jones. Yesterday it was Jones. Today, YouTube censored human vanilla Dennis Prager. Tomorrow, there may be a knock on YOUR door.
Freedom is not something you acquire by practicing it. You don’t one day wake up and decide you are free. Freedom is something tangible and it requires the cooperation of others. If others will not give you that cooperation, you have to take it from them. We need to stop whistling past the graveyard and realize the left is seeking total victory. They do not want to compete in a marketplace of ideas. Their goal is to silence dissenting voices.
Look down at where you’re standing at this very moment. That is where you draw your line in the sand. Do not give them another inch.
Jesse Kelly is a Senior Contributor at The Federalist and the host of "The Jesse Kelly Show" on KPRC 950 in Houston. Jesse is a Marine Corps combat veteran and former congressional candidate in Arizona. He resides in the Houston area with his wife and two sons.

H.R. 1: Democrats Act to Strip State Powers Over Elections

(CQ Roll Call via AP Images)
If you thought the midterm elections had problems, wait until you learn about Nancy Pelosi’s plan to terminate state control over American elections.
Democrats in Congress have announced their top legislative priority, and it isn’t health care, immigration, or taxes. Instead, they want to centralize power over elections in Washington, D.C. H.R. 1 is number one on the legislative agenda because it is the number one priority of House Democrats, leftist groups, deep-pocketed dark money, and those who use election process rules to help win elections -- or at least to cause chaos.
The bill is a 571-page dreamscape of wild wishes and federal mandates on states. The Constitution decentralizes power over American elections and puts states in charge. H.R. 1 would undo that.
Decentralization promotes individual liberty. When power over elections is centralized, it is easier for that power to be abused. When power over elections is decentralized, no single malevolent actor can exert improper control over the process. That is precisely why Democrats are so eager for Washington, D.C., to have more power over our elections.
H.R. 1 has 218 cosponsors. It forces states to implement mandatory voter registration. If someone is on a government list -- such as receiving welfare benefits or rental subsidies -- then they would be automatically registered to vote. Few states have enacted these systems because Americans still view civic participation as a voluntary choice. Moreover, aggregated government lists always contain duplicates and errors that states, even without mandatory voter registration, frequently fail to catch and fix.
H.R. 1 also mandates that states allow all felons to vote. Currently, states have the power under the Constitution to set the terms of eligibility in each state. Some states, like Maine, have decided that voting machines should be rolled into the prisons. Other states, like Nevada, have chosen to make a felony a disenfranchising event.
Leftist groups, and unfortunately some on the right, have fought for no-contrition re-enfranchisement for all felons. Florida voters just passed a constitutional amendment that mandates felon re-enfranchisement, no questions asked, no redemption needed, no contrition necessary.
This threatens the Republican Party’s viability in Florida because the number of felons it affects far surpasses the meager margin of victory for Senator Rick Scott and Governor Ron DeSantis in 2018.  Felons vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, and exponentially more felons were re-enfranchised than the GOP margin of victory in 2016 and 2018.
Of course, that helps explain why Congressional Democrats have included it in H.R. 1 -- to help Democrats win elections.
H.R. 1 would also force states to have extended periods of early voting, and mandates that early voting sites be near bus or subway routes. While purportedly designed to increase participation, early voting has been shown to have no effect on turnout.
The advantage of early voting for Democrats is that it expands the election period and exploits the natural ground game advantage Democrats enjoy with activists monitoring polls. Republicans struggle to find people with time to monitor polls, and that disparity is exacerbated if voting takes place over a month or more. Early voting also promotes an uninformed electorate and political polarization, among other problems.
H.R. 1 also undermines the First Amendment by exerting government control over political speech and undoing the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision.
The proposal also undoes another Supreme Court decision. In Husted, a case arising out of Ohio, the Court ruled that federal laws -- known as "Motor Voter" -- do not prohibit states from using a voter’s inactivity from triggering a mailing to that voter to see if they still are living at that location. H.R. 1 would undo that ruling and prohibit states from effectively cleaning voter rolls.
H.R. 1 mandates same-day voter registration and would obliterate state registration procedures. Same-day registration is the practice that enabled sufficient voter fraud in Minnesota to give Al Franken a seat in the Senate. Enough ineligible felons popped into the polls on election day using same-day registration, and their illegal ballots were the margin of Franken’s victory.
Same-day registration promotes voting by ineligible voters. It also promotes chaos at the polls. If you want longer lines, same-day registration is the way to go.
H.R. 1 limits the ability of states to cooperate to see who is registered in multiple states at the same time. Democrat Congressional nominee Wendy Rosen was able to vote for President Obama twice in the same election in Maryland and Florida -- a federal felony -- because Maryland does not participate in interstate cross checks of rolls.
H.R. 1 would nullify state laws that permit election observers to work as partners with election officials to file a formal challenge to a suspicious voter registration. Election watchdogs have been essential players in ensuring that the dead and ineligible do not cast ballots.
H.R. 1 would criminalize protected political speech by making it a crime to “discourage” someone from voting or to use deceptive practices in politics. It also would bar states from disallowing vote by mail.
The bill would prohibit chief election officials in each state from participating in federal election campaigns -- call this the anti-Kris Kobach and Brian Kemp provision.
The bill mandates that absentee ballots can be mailed for free. It mandates that states adopt so-called "independent" redistricting commissions.
But the biggest prize in H.R. 1 is to restore Justice Department approval powers over state election law changes, known as “preclearance.” This preclearance power, struck down by the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder, is the one power that unites them all. Preclearance gave radical bureaucrats at the Justice Department Voting Section, where I used to work, the power to micromanage every single state election law behind closed doors.
Here’s how it worked: Whenever a state wanted to make an election law change, no matter how small, it needed approval from Washington, D.C. bureaucrats at the Department of Justice. Move a polling place, change the hours the election office is open, hire a new translator, change a precinct line, or move voting from the school gym to the school library? DOJ had to approve.
Require voter ID, allow citizenship verification, increase penalties for voter fraud, enact election integrity procedures or implement programs to clean rolls? DOJ had to approve.
And now you see why the Left wants the power back.
When the Supreme Court struck down this small but powerful part of the Voting Rights Act, a law passed in 1965 to protect minority voting rights in the south, preclearance was required in places like Mississippi and Georgia, but also in New York City (some boroughs, not others), South Dakota, Alaska, Michigan, California, and New Hampshire. Sixteen states in all were under Washington’s thumb, as well as the majority of the U.S. population.
The Supreme Court eventually said times had changed and the 1965 formula that captured these sixteen states was obsolete.
The Left wants this power back and has cooked up a new formula for federal oversight.
If this power is revived, Democrats know they can rely on leftist lawyers who populate the bowels of the DOJ Voting Section to oppose voter ID, citizenship verification, and any other law that might impact their ideological and partisan preferences. These same lawyers abused this power when it was in effect, despite being sanctioned repeatedly by federal courts for abusing it. The lawyers who abused power are still employed, or enjoying sojourns as opinion columnists in the Washington PostThey suffer no consequence for their abuse of power. To the contrary, they thrive because of it.
Preclearance isn’t about civil rights anymore. It’s about raw political power disguised as civil rights.
Meanwhile, the usual array of racial and political interest groups have rallied in favor of the proposed federal power grab. Mi Famila Vota -- an open borders racial interest group -- plainly puts H.R. 1 in the context of the larger policy struggle:
For too long, communities of color, including Latinos, have faced attacks regarding their voting rights and gerrymandered political districts have been drawn up by lawmakers controlled by special interests so that their priorities, like tax breaks for the rich at the expense of the middle-class, drive the political agendas. Meanwhile, our priorities for better health care, a clean and safe environment, and commonsense immigration reform have been brushed aside. That is wrong and that has to change.
Failed Democrat congressional candidates like Andrew Janz are joining the effort to change election rules. Janz barely lost to Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Ca.) in a contest Nunes was expected to win by double digits.
“What I learned in my race is that you can’t begin to address the structural problems with our elections during the middle of a campaign. You need to take care of those things before the campaign starts,” Janz told The Hill.
The official title of H.R. 1 is a bill “to expand Americans' access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and for other purposes.”
It’s the “other purposes” Senate Republicans need to understand. They must kill this federal power grab.