Trusting the Department of Justice

The level of trust is such that several States are explicitly barring DoJ personnel from those States’ polling places in the November general elections.

When the DOJ announced that it was sending election monitors to polling sites in multiple states for the 2022 midterm elections, Florida and Missouri said that the department employees would not be permitted to observe the polls. Now, eight other states have said that they will also not allow DOJ election monitors to enter polling sites during the election this November, with some saying that banning them prevents federal interference in elections.

Unfortunately, those States are entirely justified in barring officials of a “Justice” Department that accuses traditional Catholics of being right-wing extremists and treats mothers objecting to wokeism in their children’s schools as domestic terrorists, and that routinely lies to the FISA court in its pursuit of surveillance warrants against American citizens, that pursues cases in Article III courts seeking to overturn voter-protection laws, and that has run guns to Mexican drug cartels.

It’s also the case that today’s Progressive-Democrat nominated and populated DoJ is substantially the same as the post-2008 elections Progressive-Democrat nominated and populated DoJ (the names are different, but the bias and the ideology are the same) that refused to prosecute two members of the New Black Panther Party who were engaged in armed voter intimidation at the entrance to a Philadelphia polling station.

This is an indication of how far the believability of the DoJ has deteriorated.

“We are the source of truth for most questions about the elections we run.”

Maricopa County election officials and the Arizona Secretary of State are colluding with social media to control what gets said about elections and election procedures in the county. But do not fear, it’s for the voters’ own good.

The offices of both the Maricopa County recorder and the Arizona secretary of state work together with third parties to censor social media content that they believe is mis- and disinformation, including drawing up plans to ban social media users from the county social media accounts and using influencers to spread their message, according to public records obtained from both Maricopa County….

The Gavel Project obtained a number of documents from the county and from the State SecState that make this plain.

Some of those documents amply the breathtaking arrogance of the county and SecState officials and their just as appalling contempt for the average Americans resident in Maricopa County. Here’s Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer:

I posit that the gravest threat to voting rights and our elected form of government is no longer the systematic disenfranchisement of a particular class of people, but instead the undermining of the entire election system through lies and disinformation. And it is in this respect, that the Constitution today is in some ways a thorn in the side of my office. Specifically the First Amendment.

Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Chairman Bill Gates:

We are the source of truth for most questions about the elections we run.

Trust us. We’re from the government.

Presidential Debates

Former President Donald Trump (R) not only wants Presidential candidate debates, he wants them to occur much earlier than they have in prior campaign seasons.

The Trump campaign has asked the Commission on Presidential Debates to schedule the anticipated matchups between him and President Joe Biden earlier in the election cycle, signaling Trump’s willingness to work the panel on date and venue.

I agree, with a caveat.

Trump shouldn’t give the CPD much time to agree to an accelerated schedule. If they don’t meet an appropriately nearby deadline to get earlier debates scheduled, or if Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden won’t agree to the schedule, or won’t agree to debate at all, then the Trump campaign should schedule the debates, including the venue (my preference here would be town hall style venues, with the majority of questions coming from the audience).

In addition to that, the Trump campaign should invite Robert Kennedy, Jr, Cornell West, Marianne Williamson (who has reactivated her campaign), and Jill Stein to the debates. If any of them decline to participate, then the Trump campaign should place empty barstools (that being the preferred seating arrangement at townhalls) labeled with the names of the candidates who didn’t want to appear.

And then proceed with the debates.

Election Interference

The No Labels group has folded its tents and quit the political race for this year, for a few reasons I’ve written about before. It appears, though, that there’s more to this fiasco than understood heretofore [ellipses in the original, emphasis added].

Democratic strategist Karen Finney argued No Labels had presented a “dangerous” threat to Biden’s re-election chances that Democrats, including her, actively worked to undermine.
They were very dangerous because they had over $70 million to get on the ballot,” Finney recalled.
“And what they were promising…They were promising that they could win states like Texas. And again, it was totally illogical, but it was a very real threat that myself and others worked very hard to not just undermine, but to make sure that the people they were talking to understood, that their rhetoric just did not work, and their math did not work[.”]

This is a member of the Progressive-Democratic Party openly bragging about having successively interfered with our upcoming election through sabotage of a third party’s effort to field a competing slate of candidates.

This is the Progressive-Democratic Party that’s on the ballot in this fall’s national, State, and local elections.

Why Trump Remains on the Ballot

The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that former President and current Republican Primary Presidential candidate Donald Trump will remain on all of the relevant election ballots, overruling the Colorado State Supreme Court directly and Maine’s Secretary of State by extension. The Court’s reasoning is important. From the ruling’s second paragraph:

Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 [of the 14th Amendment] against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.

The Court expanded on this, quoting Chief Justice Samuel Chase in his 1869 Griffin’s Case ruling:

[t]o accomplish this ascertainment [of which person[s] are explicitly barred under Section 3] and ensure effective results, proceedings, evidence, decisions, and enforcements of decisions, more or less formal, are indispensable.

The Supreme Court went on:

The Constitution empowers Congress to prescribe how those determinations should be made. The relevant provision is Section 5 [of the 14th Amendment], which enables Congress, subject of course to judicial review, to pass “appropriate legislation” to “enforce” the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court concluded [emphasis in the original]:

We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.

The three modern-day liberal/activist Justices, Sonya Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown

Jackson, while concurring in the overall judgment that Trump stays on the ballot(s), were superficially Roberts-esque in their dissent from the sweeping nature of the Court’s ruling. They began by quoting from Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization:

If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more.

But only superficially: they then wrote [citations omitted],

Today, the Court departs from that vital principle, deciding not just this case, but challenges that might arise in the future. … They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy. Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so. The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment.

[S]huts the door on other potential means: This is the activist Justices’ desire to keep this controversy alive, to keep a Presidential candidate of whom they have only contempt facing a constant and long-lasting barrage of cases seeking nothing more than to interfere in our 2024 election by interfering with a major and leading (redundancy deliberate) political candidate’s ability to campaign freely. And thereby to deny to us ordinary Americans our ability, our right, to decide for ourselves who we will choose for our President. These Justices do this solely because they personally disapprove of the particular candidate.


The Court’s ruling can be read here.