Robert David Steele & Cynthia McKinney Take on the Deep State & Shadow Government
How the For the People Act Would Revolutionize Voting
It’s been nearly three long months since H.R. 1, also known as the For the People Act, was first introduced on the House floor on January 4. The bill, which would put in place uniform federal election rules for all 50 states, would also limit partisan gerrymandering, modernize voter registration, strengthen election security, enforce campaign finance laws, broaden access to the ballot, and simplify mail-in voting.
In recent years, we have witnessed a political realignment, with ancestral Democrats in rural areas voting Republican, while traditionally Republican suburbanites vote Democrat. This realignment has led many in the media, and in both political parties, to claim that Democrats are now the party of the elite, while Republicans have become the party of the working class. Voting data, however, tells a different story: Democrats clearly remain the party of the working class, and this false narrative about elitism rests on the distortion of the term “working class” to mean “white working class,” thus excluding people of color and perpetuating stereotypes around race and work.
Since at least the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Democrats have been the party of the working class. Although Roosevelt battled with a hostile Supreme Court for the first half of his presidency, he orchestrated the New Deal, in which the National Industry Recovery Act, Social Security, fair labor standards and other pro-labor laws were enacted. As such, union workers, especially those in rural areas, were staunch supporters of the Democratic party for their pro-union stances.
The pandemic relief package is reportedly close to passage, and so Democrats are turning their attention to House Resolution 1 (or HR1), a massive voting rights overhaul that would ban partisan gerrymandering, expand voting rights protections, impose new restrictions on campaign finance, and more. If passed, it would be the most significant such law since the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
With any luck the pandemic relief package will be big enough to restore a prosperous economy within a year or so. Therefore, whether or not Democrats can overcome the Senate filibuster and their own timidity to pass HR1 is now the most important single factor in whether they can hang on to their congressional majorities, and hence stop Republicans from cheating them permanently out of national power.
If you thought the 2020 election ran like a finely oiled machine, you’ll love what Democrats plan next. The Senate and House reserved their first bills, H.R.1 and S.1, for voting changes that would make mail balloting in a plague year seem buttoned up. We’ve gone through some details already, but it’s worth another word as the House prepares to vote this week.
Advocates present the legislation as a good-government reform that won’t favor either party. But H.R.1 is packed with provisions that would federalize election rules to dubious result; unsettle longstanding practices; end security measures that local officials think prudent; undermine public confidence; and increase the odds of contested outcomes.
Bernie Sanders was in San Antonio last night (very little publicity) at a rally about two miles from my house. It had 12,000 folks show up (Biden had about 10,000 when he was in town with the support of the Democrat Party). An individual, who is a strong Trump supporter attended to observe what is going on…..his thoughts:
The 2020 presidential race might be remembered as when the dam broke on money in U.S. politics
With three billionaires in the running, campaigns, political parties and outside groups are all likely to break previous spending records during the 2020 presidential race, helped by canny consultants who know how to take advantage of court rulings and new technologies.
Yes, but, crucially, they don’t apply to rich candidates who bankroll their own campaigns. And two billionaires, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer, are spending record amounts in their bids to become the Democratic Party’s nominee to challenge President Donald Trump, a billionaire himself
Our presidential debates need reform
There are two facts in this lead sentence from a 2019 Politico story that need to be challenged.
“President Donald Trump on Monday appeared to pledge to participate in debates with his eventual Democratic opponent during next year’s general election campaign but signaled he may circumvent the nonpartisan commission historically responsible for organizing the forums.
Sunday, 11 Aug 2019 — Praise be to God!
Big Picture. Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard emergent as winnable pairing for Democrats. Williamson has one chance to crush it in next debate: call Trump out on his big three. Trump near catatonic with shit staff losing base percentages by the hour over his gun control idiocy. “White Supremacy” and censorship of “haters” is the big picture “trick” for stealing the election in 2020. As of today the President is providing zero leadership against this trick being carried out by the Zionists (ADL) across all mainstream and social media platforms. The President is also ignoring Marianne Williamson and the politics of love. YUGE mistake. She is awaking the dormant social consciousness crowd (not to be confused with the corrupt Democratic politicians like Elijah Cummings). Both sides seem certain they will win by a landslide. One of them is wrong. The country is divided — NEITHER of the two parties is speaking to the 70% who are disenfranchised — NEITHER is offering #UNRIG Unity with Integrity (Election Reform Act Proposed).
Continue reading “Caitlin Johnstone: Six Thoughts on Bernie Sanders 2020 [PBI: Sheepdog 2.0]”
Opinion: Trump is right: The United States needs electoral reform
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has claimed that the U.S. presidential election is rigged. In other countries where free and fairness of elections are suspect, political and societal leaders often call upon international short-term and long-term election monitors to observe their polls and render an assessment.
I have served on multiple international elections missions, several times in Russia and once in Morocco, and have read hundreds of other election monitoring reports
Matthew King of suburban Tacoma, Washington, is a Democrat who believes the average American should donate to presidential candidates to thwart big money’s influence. Though he is looking for work, he feels so strongly about the issues that he makes small monthly contributions to Democratic candidates and causes.
“It’s democracy in action,” King says, describing his hopes for a president who will combine leftist ideals with strong Christian values. “Right now, money is our voice in politics.”
The Price of Public Money