How the one-party system is being forced on America

By Paul Ackerman | Mar 14, 2019

Once upon a time there was a Democratic Party that actually had centrists and what were humorously called “moderates.” If you’ve been under a rock for the past few years, you won’t have followed the projected planning of the new totalitarians running that show now.

Going all the way back to the Obama administration years -- 2014 to be exact — the Democrats had been trying to cement into law ways to end-run the Constitution. They want to overturn all recent legal precedent related to political speech and finance to make permanent their lock on power in both the federal government and states. Back in 2014 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., tried to accomplish this with an attempt to amend the Constitution to restrict political speech and campaign finance. This was termed S.J. Res 19 and thankfully then imploded because of its unconstitutional qualities.

Much of what the disingenuous Reid and his cohorts were trying to do then is being regurgitated now by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., as the laughably named “For the People Act,” which is numerically titled H.R.1. This 444-page bill is the most egregious attempt yet to grasp for power by a political party in our nation’s existence. Hopefully it will die in the Senate.

This is 444 pages of mind-numbing bureaucratese all designed to the advantage of those holding the reins of power in Washington, D.C. It will give the government, never known for wasteful spending or ineptitude, total control over computerized automatic voter registration. It will be interconnected to every federal and state agency that anyone – eligible or not — interacts with at any time. What are the safeguards against voter registration fraud? An online signature is OK -- that is it.

What about voter ID laws? They will be destroyed by this bill, which will allow anyone to vote without a photo ID by just signing a statement saying they claim to be who they are. Try to dispute that and you will be accused of a federal crime. Want to vote in a different district or precinct? No problem, voting officials cannot stop anyone from doing that, either.

But really, you cannot believe the stupidity and duplicitous aspects of this bill without reading some of it:

“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.

“(j) Requirement For State To Register Applicants Providing Necessary Information To Show Eligibility To Vote. — For purposes meeting the requirement of subsection (a)(1) that an eligible applicant is registered to vote in an election for Federal office within the deadlines required under such subsection, the State shall consider an applicant to have provided a ‘valid voter registration form’' if—

“(1) the applicant has substantially completed the application form and attested to the statement required by section 9(b)(2); and

“(2) in the case of an applicant who registers to vote online in accordance with section 6A, the applicant provides a signature in accordance with subsection (c) of such section.”.

Get this through your head — this is enforcing the never-before-existed-law that a 16-year-old who registers online cannot be denied the “right to vote.” Bye-bye, Constitution ... they are just writing everything they want into this bill in order to control the country.

H.R. 1 federalizes all aspects of voter registration and voting, usurping the authority of any state to implement its own rules regarding registration, early voting, absentee ballots or online voter registration. It will not result in more accurate voter rolls, but precisely the opposite. The automatic registration of voters based on state databases like DMV and welfare systems will cause chaos. Why? Because this bill also prohibits officials from using the U.S. Postal Service’s national change of address system to confirm or verify registrants through state programs to compare voter lists. It might as well be a how-to-scam-the-system tutorial.

Given the fact (as reported by the Washington Post back in 2015) that the Chinese government is believed to have hacked the personal information of “at least 22.1 million government employees,” no one should be accepting this bill’s premise as any sort of security for the electoral processes in America. The bill also cuts the number of Federal Election Commission members from six, which is an even split, to five, thereby allowing the party with three seats to pursue partisan political actions in a punitive way. That, for the uninformed, is a specialty of one party, the Democrats. See Lois Lerner/IRS, see Eric Holder/DOJ, and see Bill Clinton/ad nauseum.

Now look at the push in Maine to force the LD 418, the “National Popular Vote” compact on us. This bill got an “ought not to pass” recommendation from the Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee the other day and has been forwarded to the Senate anyway. What a charade — this, too, is an attempted power grab by one party to rewrite the rules, believing that in this way that they cannot lose if they can get rid of the Electoral College system.

It is just an embarrassment for Maine to have politicians who want to negate Maine’s electoral college votes by allowing this unconstitutional “compact among states” to be enjoined. Many legal scholars have already weighed in on this “compact” and have concluded that it is unconstitutional by its very nature, since joiners would be specifically disadvantaging non-participants by confiscating the value of the other states' votes by way of collapsing the Electoral College.

There are many external threats to America, but none worse than the internal lust for power of the new version of totalitarians in the Democratic Party.

Comments (10)
Posted by: Kenneth W Hall | Mar 19, 2019 10:53

My apologies.  I wanted to know if you thought it was fair for a person who worked 10 hours a week in a Social Democracy should be equal to a person who worked 40 hours a week.  I was curious how a Social Democracy works.  Does it reward someone who works more then some one who chooses not to?



Posted by: Ronald Horvath | Mar 19, 2019 10:39

"Yes or No?"  Are you serious?  Let's look at that question again, shall we.

" I want to understand, a person who works 40 hours a week compared to a person, who has the ability but chooses to only work 10 hours a week should have the same?"

Really?  You think that is a yes or no question.  In fact, where is the question in that confused statement?

I've said it before and reemphasize it now;  Organize your "thoughts" before you post and maybe you won't sound so scatterbrained.  And if my posts are too much for you to read than maybe political debate isn't really for you.  At least not on anything resembling an intellectual level.  Just shouting nonsensical "questions" -and I use that term as loosely as possible- doesn't amount to debate, and I don't indulge in shrieking matches.

Posted by: Kenneth W Hall | Mar 19, 2019 08:25

Is there an answer in there somewhere or just rambling?  Lots of gobble-d-gook, but answering a question with a question is not the way to find commonality.  I tried to understand where the level of equality is.  I want to understand, a person who works 40 hours a week compared to a person, who has the ability but chooses to only work 10 hours a week should have the same?  That is a simple yes or no answer.

Posted by: Ronald Horvath | Mar 18, 2019 07:48

I'm sorry you don't want to talk about trump, Ken, because if you're that concerned about your own money you should be.  After all:

"There’s more bad news for taxpayers. A government report has revealed that 11 million taxpayers are losing out on $323 billion worth of deductions due to a punishing change in President Donald Trump’s tax law. The hard news comes after early filers were stunned by shrinking — to vanishing — tax refunds.

The deduction wallop detailed in the government report centers on capped deductions for state and local taxes — including real estate taxes.   The cap was imposed to help pay for huge tax cuts to corporations, whose tax rates were slashed from 35 percent to 21 percent.

The deduction hit is so staggering that it could end up swamping modest gains taxpayers had expected to enjoy due to tax cuts.

So, since this is central to your concerns let's talk about those taxes you are so incensed about.

I think that we can both agree that taxes are the dues we pay for living in a civilized country, one where you don't half to stand outside your home with an assault weapon to defend everything you've worked so hard for.  But I think even you have to agree that living in such a country is essential to making that money.

Everyone that works serves the needs of their society in some way, don't they?  Unless you're a totally subsistence farmer you depend on the society in which you live to provide your living.  You make, serve, supply, or provide something that society needs in return for your living.  And in return the society provides a safe environment for all of us in which to function:  the roads, schools, police, firemen, communications, and laws -the rules of behavior- that make it all possible.  Without these things we'd be  living in a libertarian paradise called Somalia.  

In other words we depend on collective action of all our citizens to accomplish a higher standard of living for all of us.  

“Social liberalism”: individuals were not autonomous entities, they were socially constituted; each of us relied on complex systems—from the division of labor to bureaucracy—to survive and flourish under the conditions of modernity and especially under capitalism.” - Michael J. Thompson is the founder and editor of Logos. He teaches Political Science at William Paterson University.

And most of those "complex systems work.  Most conservatives realize this even while they're working to undo them.

“We should remember why the immediate post-Depression generations created so many social-welfare programs. They were not motivated only — or even primarily — by “compassion.” They were motivated as well by the desire for stability.

Social Security, unemployment insurance and other benefits were designed as anti-Depression defenses, “automatic stabilizers” as economists called them. When people lost their jobs, their incomes did not drop by 100 percent, but by 30 percent or 40 percent: they could continue to pay rent, buy food and sustain society’s overall level of demand for goods and services. State pensions created a segment of society whose primary incomes remained stable regardless of economic conditions. The growth of the higher-education sector and of health care had a similar effect.

This shift to a more welfare-oriented economy helps explain why business cycles in the second half of the 20th century were so much less volatile than they were in the 19th century. And fortunately enough, this shift put a floor under the economic collapse of 2008-09. Retirees who lost their savings had to cut back painfully. But at least their Social Security checks continued to arrive. People who lost their jobs might lose their homes. But they continued to buy food and clothing. And the industries that sold those basic necessities continued to function — unlike in 1929-33, when the whole economy collapsed upon itself.”  David Frum,

And that's where our taxes should be going, to a safe, stable nation one we all can share in.  If that's not worth putting up with all the human flaws we see every day in our government and society than what is?  What would make your taxes worth while, Ken? How would you solve this problem?

And cutting taxes doesn't always work.  Those states with the least taxes and poorest people -being the most "conservative"- end up being supported by the rest of us, moving your money "to another state," as you said.  

"Mississippi is one of the most blatant examples of a state receiving more federal tax money than it gives: WalletHub finds that for every dollar in federal taxes Mississippi pays, it receives $3.07 from the federal government. A 2007 report from the Tax Foundation found that Mississippi was receiving $2.47 from the federal government for every dollar it was paying

The fact that Mississippi has a hard time making ends meet without help from Washington, DC stems from being a so-called “right to work” state, meaning it has a very low rate of unionization and plenty of low-wage jobs. Mississippi is one of the poorest states in the country"

"...  when it comes to “small government,” Alaska Republicans don’t practice what they preach: according to WalletHub, Alaska receives $1.42 from the federal government for every dollar it contributes. Tax Foundation’s research showed Alaska receiving $1.93 from Uncle Sam for every dollar paid in. Alaska Republicans love to rail against the federal government, but the reality is that Alaska needs federal tax revenue badly in order to function."

"Alabama is one of the most Republican-dominated states in the U.S., and it is also a state that is very reliant on the federal government. According to Wallet Hub’s study, Alabama receives 37% of its revenue from the federal government and receives $3.28 for every dollar it pays in federal taxes. "

" According to Wallet Hub’s research, Louisiana receives $3.35 from the federal government for every dollar it pays in; 44% of Louisiana’s funding, WalletHub says, comes from Washington, DC. Louisiana, under Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal, is another “right-to-work” state, and a state with so many underpaid workers is naturally going to have a lot less income to tax."

"the disdain that Indiana Republicans often express for “big government” rings false because according to Wallet Hub, Indiana receives $2.01 from the federal government for every federal tax dollar it contributes and receives 33% of its funding from Uncle Sam. Indiana Republicans can hate coastal Democrats all they want, but without the federal tax revenue Democratic areas generate, Indiana would have a hard time functioning."

"Montana receives a lot of help from the federal government: WalletHub’s research shows that Montana receives $1.55 from the federal government for every dollar it contributes (the Tax Foundation’s 2007 report found that Montana’s intake from Uncle Sam was $1.92 for every dollar paid)...  the idea that Montana could function without tax revenue is pure fantasy."

"Nikki Haley once boasted, “I love that we are one of the least unionized states in the country.” But that is nothing to be proud of, especially in light of the fact that non-union workers tend to have lower wages and therefore, contribute less tax revenue. The Tax Foundation found that South Carolina was receiving $1.92 from the federal government for every federal tax dollar it was contributing."

"West Virginia is one of the poorest states in the country, with 17.6% of its population living in poverty from 2008-2012 compared to 14.9% nationwide (according to the U.S. Census Bureau). And with so many West Virginians living in poverty, they simply aren’t going to be a major source of income tax revenue...  WalletHub described West Virginia as a state that receives $2.22 in federal tax revenue for every dollar it pays, and the Tax Foundation’s figure in its 2007 study was $2.57 received per dollar paid."

"for a so-called “right-to-work” state like Tennessee: too many of its residents are working low-paying, non-union service jobs that generate a lot less sales and other state tax revenue than the unionized jobs Republicans are so bitterly opposed to. Tennessee, according to WalletHub, receives $1.64 from the federal government for every federal tax dollar it contributes—and WalletHub notes that 41% of Tennessee’s funding comes from Uncle Sam."

"...  as widespread as talk of “small government” and “fiscal responsibility” are in Kentucky, WalletHub’s research shows that Kentucky receives $2.39 from the federal government for every dollar it pays. According to WalletHub, 35% of Kentucky’s revenue comes from Washington, DC. And the Tax Foundation found that Kentucky was receiving $1.75 from the federal government for every dollar paid.


(And to think Kentucky has the richest Senator in DC, Mitch McConnell.  Makes you wonder, doesn't it,)


So, Ken, your complaint about your money going to other states is true enough but it may just be that conservative labor policies have more to do with inhibiting the tax revenues of those states than democratic give-a-ways.  

So, where would you like your money to go?

Posted by: Kenneth W Hall | Mar 17, 2019 22:50

I totally agree Richard!!!  I was hoping for an explanation so I could understand.  Giving away my hard earned savings for decades, to someone to move to another state really is hard for me to understand.  To go from nothing to what I have today was from my hard work, the grace of God, and nothing else.  I just want to understand how that is a bad thing.  The hours of my time I donate to raise money for many different charities.  The amount of money I donate to charities that I feel disperse those hard earned dollars effectively.  The efforts I make to save the planet, be it using less plastic, to putting the fish I catch back into the water for my grandchildren to catch.  I feel much better controlling my own money I worked for then giving it to someone who chooses not.  Even worse, loosing it from ever increasing taxes and then see the amount of waste and redundancy.

Posted by: Richard McKusic, Sr. | Mar 17, 2019 16:37

Until we get rid of this, "I'm right, you're wrong.", mentality how are we going to move ahead?

Posted by: Kenneth W Hall | Mar 17, 2019 08:52

I am not talking about TRUMP!  I am talking about two individual wallets and your wallet is shrinking and I am trying to learn where your level of equal man kind stops and self preservation begins?  I am trying to understand.  Where does a Social Democracy decide when it is unfair to oneself?  When do you decide to figure out, that others are better off then what you are putting towards the system?   The ones who have figured out how to SCAM the system?

Posted by: Ronald Horvath | Mar 17, 2019 08:05

Maybe you should look at what your president's budget has in store for working people, Ken.  If you're that concerned about your wallet, I mean.

"Federal deficits have widened immensely under Trump’s leadership. This is striking not only because he promised fiscal responsibility — at one time even pledging to eliminate  the national debt within eight years — but also because it’s a historical anomaly. Deficits usually narrow when the economy is good and we’re not engaged in a major war.

Trump’s own policies are to blame for this aberration. Specifically, the 2017 tax law, which gave two-thirds of its benefits to the top income quintile last year, added $1.9 trillion to deficits over the coming decade.

Trump’s plan for addressing these issues? Extend the plutocratic tax cuts (currently slated to partially expire in 2025), which would add $1 trillion to deficits; double down on defense spending increases (and money for his border wall); and then balance the budget on the backs of the nation’s most vulnerable.

“Altogether, the budget would make poverty deeper and more widespread, increase the ranks of the uninsured, exacerbate inequality and racial disparities, and shrink opportunities for those trying to get ahead,” said Robert Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The Trump administration says such tough choices will lead to a balanced budget, which it claims it would achieve by 2034. But even that is untrue. In fact, the only way you end up with anything approximating balanced budgets, even with  some of these draconian cuts, is by making delusional predictions about economic growth.

Or put another way: lying to the American people."

And we know where trump is getting his "wall" money, don't we.

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon is planning to tap $1 billion in leftover funds from military pay and pension accounts to help President Donald Trump pay for his long-sought border wall, a top Senate Democrat said Thursday.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told The Associated Press, “It’s coming out of military pay and pensions. $1 billion. That’s the plan.”

Durbin said the funds are available because Army recruitment is down and a voluntary early military retirement program is being underutilized.

And Rep. Omar has plenty of support among Jewish voters.

"We're enormously proud to stand with over 30 Jewish organizations worldwide to say not to this harmful definition of anti-semitism and yues to human rights and the freedom to protest."  -Rebecca Vilkonmerson, Executive Director, Jewish Voice for Peace.

Ilhan Omar

"Our democracy is built on debate, Congresswoman! I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee. The people of the 5th elected me to serve their interest. I am sure we agree on that!"
Replying to @NitaLowey

And Republicans have little right to complain, being the champions of "hate" speech.

"With hatred against minorities being the animating force of the modern Republican Party, a significant number of Republican Representatives suddenly found themselves unwilling to condemn themselves — which resulted in the very telling sight of 26 Republicans voting against condemning anti-Semitism and hate of all kinds, including House GOP conference chair Liz Cheney, truly her father’s daughter.

Ostensibly, they are complaining that they wanted a specific bill against anti-Semitism so that they could single out Ilhan Omar while studiously ignoring their colleague Steve King’s (R-IA) long history of supporting white supremacy — but if that was the case, why wouldn’t they just vote for this one anyway?

What harm would it do to unilaterally oppose all forms of hate, including anti-Semitism… unless one was deeply invested in promoting hatred against immigrants, people of color, the LGBT community and Muslims?

Perhaps we should ask Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), who promoted anti-Semitic conspiracies against billionaire George Soros and accused him of betraying his fellow Jews during the Holocaust (Soros was barely a teenager at the time) on FOX News.

Or perhaps we should ask Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), who was denounced as a racist by his own family and has been harshly criticized for associating with anti-Muslim hate groups.

Or Chris Collins (R-NY), who ran a disgustingly racist attack ad of his opponent speaking Korean while flashing pictures of Kim Jong-un in the background."

And, of course, let's not forget the recent slaughter in NZ where the perpetrator called trump "a symbol of renewed white identity." And that only days after Trump's veiled threat of violence against his opposition using "the tough people, but they don’t play it tough until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad."

Tough talk from a cowardly draft-dodger, don't you think?

Posted by: Kenneth W Hall | Mar 16, 2019 23:12

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., walks through the halls of the Capitol Building in Washington. In Omar's Minnesota district, both Jews and Muslims voiced concern about her comments on Israel.

Andrew Harnik/AP

This was a caption under a photo of her on NPR.  The rate the D's are moving to the left the voters in the middle are going to end up looking at their wallets and not want to change.  How did the democratic strategist say it?  "It the economy stupid"

Dig deep into the wallet Mr Ron,  my cousin just had a baby and needs to expand the deduction from your wallet.  After all we need to be equal for all.

Posted by: Ronald Horvath | Mar 16, 2019 15:35

Let's make up our own minds without this kind of partisan MIS-interpretation.



House-passed H.R. 1 Includes Amendment, Legislation authored by Rep. Ilhan Omar
March 8, 2019

WASHINGTON—Representative Ilhan Omar (DFL-MN) today voted for H.R. 1, a set of historic reforms designed to end the culture of corruption in Washington. The bill ends the dominance of big money in our politics and empowers American citizens by establishing a voluntary small-donor matching system funded by wealthy tax cheats and corporate lawbreakers, shines a light on secret money in politics through increased donor disclosure requirements, and strengthens campaign finance oversight

The bill includes the Protect Against Unlawful Lobbying (PAUL) Act, authored by Rep. Omar, which strengthens the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and makes sure that lobbyists representing foreign countries act in good faith and operate with full transparency.

The final legislation also contained an amendment offered by Reps. Omar and Pramila Jayapal that prohibits lobbying on behalf of foreign countries identified by the Secretary of State as engaging in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.

“Until we are able to create a fair election system and ensure everyone’s right to participate in our democracy, we will continue to face barriers to the transformative change we seek,” Rep. Omar said “With H.R. 1, House Democrats have passed a once-in-a-generation reform package to restore the promise of our democracy and repair our institutions. I am particularly proud that the final bill includes my legislation to strengthen enforcement of foreign lobbying and my amendment to crack down on lobbyists who represent human rights abusers.”

“H.R. 1 is a bold declaration to the American people that the Democratic majority gets it – we want to build a democracy that actually works for the people, because when we do, government will become more responsive to the needs of everyday Americans. If we give regular Americans a seat at the table and the tools to be heard.”


If you wish to comment, please login.