https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/h-r-1-would-fundamentally-change-elections-in-this-country-forever/

WASHINGTON, DC- Are you familiar with H.R.1: For the People Act of 2021? If you’re not you should be. The act would be better named “H.R.1: For Making Sure Republicans Never Win Another National Election Act of 2021.”

This bill, if passed will fundamentally change how America conducts elections. Actually what it will do in part is codify the apparent massive irregularities that occurred in the 2020 election.

Before getting into the sordid details of this abomination, let’s take a look at Article II, Section I, Clause II of the United States Constitution:

 Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…

In other words, the Framers of the Constitution specifically said that state legislatures, not Congress shall determine how electors are determined in their states.

This argument was part of the irregularities argued in the 2020 election, as several states, among them Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan all had election laws changed either by courts, governors or unelected election officials.

It would appear that what Congress is trying to do, in part would be unconstitutional, although truth be told, it is uncertain if the Supreme Court, which has shown itself to be pretty much gutless with a few exceptions would do their Constitutional duty. However, here is what is proposed in H.R., proposed by Rep. John P. Sarbanes (D-MD). This is not the full text of the bill, just the “highlights”:

1). Internet-only registration with electronic signature submission.

(a) Requiring Availability For Online Registration- Each State, acting through the chief State election official shall ensure that the following services are available to the public at any time on the official public websites of the appropriate State and local election officials in the State, in the same manner and subject to the same terms and conditions as the services provided by voter registration agencies under section 7(a);

(1) Online application for voter registration

2). Banning the requirement to provide a full SSN for voter registration

Sec 1005. PROHIBITING STATE FROM REQUIRING APPLICANTS TO PROVIDE MORE THAN LAST 4 DIGITS OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER

(a) Form Included With Application For Motor Vehicle Driver’s License- Section 5 (c)(2)(B)(ii) of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52 U.S.C. 20504(c)(2)(B)(ii) is amended by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting the following: “and to the extent that the application requires the applicant to provide a Social Security number, may not require the applicant to provide more than the last 4 digits of such number;”.

3) Nationwide “Motor Voter” registration

(2) DEFINITION.—The term “automatic registration” means a system that registers an individual to vote in elections for Federal office in a State, if eligible, by electronically transferring the information necessary for registration from government agencies to election officials of the State so that, unless the individual affirmatively declines to be registered, the individual will be registered to vote in such elections.

NOTE: In other words, motor voter, which provides registration for anyone either obtaining or renewing an operator’s license or registration, would be mandatory. This type of program is alleged to be the reason that thousands of illegals became registered voters in states such as California and Nevada.

4) 16 year olds required to be registered to vote

(d) Treatment of Individuals Under 18 Years of Age—A state may not refuse to treat an individual as an eligible individual for purposes of this part on the grounds that the individual is less than 18 years of age at the time a contributing agency receives information with respect to the individual, so long as the individual is at least 16 years of age at such time. Nothing in the previous sentence may be construed to require a State to permit an individual who is under 18 years of age at the time of an election for Federal office to vote in the election.

5) Nationwide same-day registration

(1) REGISTRATION.—Each State shall permit an eligible individual on the day of a Federal election and on any day when voting, including early voting is permitted for a Federal election—

(A) to register to vote in such election at the polling place using a form that meets the requirements under section 9(b) of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (or, if the individual is already registered to vote, to revise any of the individual’s voter registration information); and

(B) to cast a vote in such election

6) Grants (25M for using minors in election activities.

(1) IN GENERAL- The Election Assistance Commission (hereafter in this section referred to as the “Commission”) shall make grants to eligible States to enable such States to carry out a plan to increase the involvement of individuals under 18 years of age in public election activities in the State.

7) More children voters.

(k) Acceptance of Applications From Individuals Under 18 Years of Age-

(1) IN GENERAL- A State may not refuse to accept or process an individuals application to register to vote in elections for Federal office on the grounds that the individual is under 18 years of age at the time the individual submits the application, so long as the individual is at least 16 years of age at such time.

Prohibiting attempts to clean voter rolls of non-residents.

(1) REQUIREMENTS FOR CHALLENGES—No person, other than a State or local election official, shall submit a formal challenge to an individual’s eligibility to register to vote in an election for Federal office or to vote in an election for Federal office unless that challenge is supported by personal knowledge regarding the grounds for ineligibility which is—

9) Would permit convicted felons the right to vote

(1) NOTIFICATION—On the date determined under paragraph (2), each State shall notify in writing any individual who has been convicted of a criminal offense under the law of that State that such individual has the right to vote in an election for Federal office pursuant to the Democracy Restoration Act of 2021 and may register to vote in any such election and provide such individual with any materials that are necessary to register to vote in any such election.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

10) Mandatory early voting

(1) IN GENERAL—Each State shall allow individuals to vote in an election for Federal office during an early voting period which occurs prior to the date of the election, in the same manner as voting is allowed on such date.

11) Nationwide vote by mail, ban on ballot protection measures, legalized limitless ballot harvesting

Sec. 307. PROMOTING ABILITY OF VOTERS TO VOTE BY MAIL

(a) Uniform Availability of Absentee Voting to All Voters—

(1) IN GENERAL- If an individual in a State is eligible to cast a vote in an election for Federal office, the State may not impose any additional conditions or requirements on the eligibility of the individual to cast the vote in such election by absentee ballot by mail.

(2) ADMINISTRATION OF VOTING BY MAIL—

(A) PROHIBITING IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT AS CONDITION OF OBTAINING BALLOT—A State may not require an individual to provide any form of identification as a condition of obtaining an absentee ballot, except that nothing in this paragraph may be construed to prevent a State from requiring a signature of the individual or similar affirmation as a condition of obtaining an absentee ballot.

(B) PROHIBITING REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE NOTARIZATION OR WITNESS SIGNATURE AS CONDITION OF OBTAINING OR CASTING BALLOT.—A state may not require notarization or witness signature or other formal authentication (other than voter attestation) as a condition of obtaining or casting an absentee ballot.

(3) PERMITTING VOTERS TO DESIGNATE OTHER PERSON TO RETURN BALLOT.—The State—

(A) Shall permit a voter to designate any person to return a voted and sealed absentee ballot to the post office, a ballot drop-off location, tribally designated building, or election office so long as the person designated to return the ballot does not receive any form of compensation based on the number of ballots that the person has returned and no individual, group, or organization provides compensation on this basis; and

(B) May not put any limit on how many voted and sealed absentee ballots any designated person can return to the post office, a ballot drop off location, tribally designated building, or election office.

12) Banning Voter ID

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (C), if a State has in effect a requirement that an individual present identification as a condition of receiving and casting a ballot in an election for Federal office, the State shall permit the individual to meet the requirement—

(A) in the case of an individual who desires to vote in person, by presenting the appropriate State or local election official with a sworn written statement, signed by the individual under penalty of perjury, is attesting to the individual’s identity and attesting that the individual is eligible to vote in the election;

Other provisions in the legislative proposal? It would explore statehood for the District of Columbia (clearly unconstitutional), would look into extending voting rights to United States territories such as Puerto Rico and Guam, would establish complete Congressional takeover of redistricting.

Probably one of the most damning and frankly tyrannical proposal is found in Sec. 3201 of the Bill, NATIONAL STRATEGY TO PROTECT UNITED STATES DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS.

Sounds noble, right? However as always happens with Congressional bills, the devil is in the details. Here they are:

(a) In General—Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President, acting through the Secretary, in consultation with the Chairman, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Education, the Director of National Intelligence, the Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, and the heads of any other appropriate Federal agencies, shall issue a national strategy to protect any cyber-attacks, influence operations, disinformation campaigns [emphasis added], and other activities that could undermine the security and integrity of the United States democratic institutions.

(b) Considerations—the national strategy required under subsection (a) shall include consideration of the following:

(1) The threat of a foreign state actor, foreign terrorist organization (ad designated pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189)), or a domestic actor carrying out a cyber-attack, influence operation, disinformation campaign, or other activity aimed at undermining the security and integrity of United States democratic institutions.

(3) Potential consequences, such as an erosion of public trust or an undermining of the rule of law, that could result from a successful cyber-attack, influence operation, disinformation campaign, or other activity aimed at undermining the security and integrity of United States democratic institutions.

Read that last section carefully. What Sec. 3201 would do is effectively criminalize ANY allegation of possible election fraud. This undermines the right to free speech under the First Amendment.

Looking at this bill in its entirety, what Democrats are looking to do is codify election fraud. If this law passes, Democrats will have a stranglehold on national elections going forward. Please share this with as many people as possible.

https://uncoverdc.com/2021/01/25/have-400000-americans-died-of-covid-19/

The Natural Enemy of the PSYOP is the True Scientist


Unbeknownst (of course) to the architects of the two Covid PSYOPS of 2020 and 2021, an atmospheric scientist in Greensprings, Oregon, himself unafraid of controversy, was putting the finishing touches on a Covid-19 paper he’d begun to write three months earlier.

The bombshell paper is titled: “A Critical Review of CDC USA Data on Covid-19: PCR/Antigen Tests & Cases Reveal Herd Immunity Only, & Do Not Warrant Public Hysteria or Lockdown.” It was posted on two of his academic webpages on 16 Jan 2021. The links are here and here.

In it, Dr. James DeMeo, Ph.D., demolishes the central premise of global lockdown policies. That people are dying in massive and alarming numbers from a novel disease. He’d been waiting for the final statistics to come in for 2020. When they did, he noticed two spectacularly odd things:  Firstly, if one subtracted the numbers of Covid deaths (around 315,000) from the total number of people who died from all causes in 2020 (around 2.9 million), one obtained a dramatically low number of total deaths, lower than in any year since 2014. It appeared to him that the reported number of “Covid” deaths were being re-defined and subtracted from other causes of deaths; the people who died of “co-morbidities” were being shifted over into the Covid category. Secondly, on January 3rd, the CDC released its year-end count of all-cause deaths in one dramatically high number—268,259 to be exact.

I don't know of anything else.

Obviously voters can decide not to endorse someone again, but that would require us to put faith in the election process.

But we just had the cleanest, and most historic election ever conducted, so why would we need to put faith into the process?

Y’all so funny, arguing over what the Constitution allows, as if we still have a constitutional republic.

 The constitution is only applicable to the standards set forth by the DCP.   Any conservative opinion shall be questioned, and disavowed.

A young blonde woman was driving through the Florida Everglades while on vacation. She wanted to take home a pair of genuine alligator shoes in the worst way, but was very reluctant to pay the high prices the local vendors were asking.

After becoming very frustrated with the attitude of one of the shopkeepers, the young Blonde declared, "Well then, maybe I'll just go out and catch my own alligator and get a pair of shoes for free!"

The shopkeeper said with a sly smile, "Well, little lady, why don't you go on and give it a try?"

The blonde headed off to the swamp, determined to catch an alligator.

Later in the day, as the shopkeeper was driving home, he spotted the same young woman standing waist deep in the murky water, with a gun in her hand. As he brought his car to a stop, he saw a huge 9-foot gator swimming rapidly toward her. With lightning reflexes, the blonde took aim, shot the creature and hauled it up onto the slippery bank.

Nearby were 7 more dead gators, all lying belly up.

The shopkeeper stood on the bank, watching in silent amazement. The blonde struggled mightily and managed to flip the gator onto its back. Rolling her eyes heavenward, she screamed in frustration :

"HECK! THIS ONE'S BAREFOOT, TOO!"

https://dailycaller.com/2021/01/25/barr-a-motion-to-dismiss-for-lack-of-jurisdiction-should-swiftly-end-the-senate-impeachment-farce/

If there was perhaps one mistake our Founders made in drafting the Constitution, it was presuming that future members of the Legislative Branch would be sufficiently competent to actually read the document to which they all had sworn an oath. It is, however, increasingly clear that many – perhaps most — sitting United States senators cannot read the plain text of the Constitution.

The relevant wording in the Constitution is at the very end of Article II, establishing that a constitutionally errant “President,  .  .  .  shall be removed from Office” if he first has been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Unlike other sections of the Constitution where clarity may be obscured by arcane wording, this particular provision is clear and concise, and it applies to “the President.” The language pointedly does not provide in any way, shape, or form that a “Former President” or an “Ex-President” may be similarly punished, only the President.

The 100-member Senate at this moment is split right down the middle between those who identify as Republicans and those who identify as Democrats.  Democrat leader Chuck Schumer has declared openly and without hesitancy that as the self-styled “Majority Leader,” he will move forward within days to try Donald Trump. The goal of such a trial would be to find Mr. Trump guilty of the single Article of Impeachment passed on Jan. 13 by a majority of representatives on the other side of the Capitol Dome.

While many GOP senators remain openly opposed to Schumer’s plan, it appears that a number of Republican senators, notably including the most recent “Majority Leader” – Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell – have signed on to the notion that there will be a trial as demanded by Schumer.

The basis on which Schumer and his Democrat colleagues are proceeding against Trump can best be understood by their all-consuming hatred for the former president, a sentiment they share with their House colleagues. Their zeal to punish Mr. Trump appears to have blinded them even to common sense and to the plain meaning of words – factors that otherwise and in less toxic times would lead them to realize that no matter how powerful and exalted they might view themselves as “senators,” a person cannot be “removed” by them from an office that he or she does not in fact occupy.

It is black-letter law that a court cannot punish someone for a crime if it does not have jurisdiction over that person. Just as courts of law have no power over individuals outside their defined jurisdiction, the United States Senate has no power over a former President of the United States.

No matter the degree to which Sen. Schumer despises Mr. Trump and hopes to prevent him from being able to run again for office at some future date (as unlikely as that may be), the body of which Schumer is a long-serving member does not have power under the Constitution to thus punish the ex-president.


It is less clear what accounts for Sen. McConnell’s decision to buy into the legally baseless presumption that the Senate magically has acquired jurisdiction to conduct a trial of and to then punish a former president. Perhaps it is the fact that Trump’s behavior leading to the twin loss of Georgia’s Senate seats in the Jan. 5 runoff cost McConnell his job as Majority Leader. Maybe it is four years of pent-up dislike for Trump’s personal behavior contrary to establishment norms. Regardless of why McConnell is behaving so foolishly as to read into the Constitution’s impeachment trial power of the Senate something that clearly and legally is not there, it is making the Senate appear unmoored from history, the law, and common sense.

Mitch McConnell is a lawyer. He seems, however, to have forgotten that a prosecutor who oversteps his authority and tries to convict someone over whom the court has no jurisdiction, will be hit with a swift – and ultimately successful – motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. This is precisely what Trump’s lawyers need to file, and by so doing let the American people know that at least they can read the Constitution.

Yeah.  The Chief Justice presides over the trial if it's against a sitting president.  Not in other cases, so by the constitution, he can't.  Expect that this is going to be a kangaroo court with democrats in charge.  They can approve / decline whatever evidence they want.  This will be a made for media shit show.