It seems more than obvious at this point that the Democrat Party has been overseeing the country’s biggest voter fraud operation for years, what with the number of arrests made regarding fraudulent ballot casting and always for their party’s candidates.
This belief has been strengthened by Democrat resistance across the board to even the most rudimentary and common-sense election and ballot security practices, the latest being the GOP push for requirements to prove one’s citizenship and produce a government-supplied identification in order to vote in all federal elections. It’s literally one of those 80-20 issues, with 80 percent of the country (including 3/4’s of Democratic voters) approving.
Now, top Democrats in Congress, along with their political apparatuses, have left zero doubt they are working feverishly to protect a meticulously-built vote fraud operation that spans decades and appears to include everything from faulty voter registration lists (which come in handy when you rely heavily on mail-in ballots) to suspected fraudulent donations to the party via the ActBlue donation platform (foreign money? USAID dollars?):
The Democratic National Committee, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, along with their major campaign arms, filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday to block President Trump’s executive order cracking down on mail-in voting rules ahead of the midterms.
The order, as reported by RedState’s Ward Clark earlier this week, requires federal agencies to verify U.S. citizenship using Social Security and DHS data, directs the Postal Service to send absentee ballots only to voters on approved state lists, and uses unique barcodes for tracking.
The swift and aggressive legal response reeks of panic from
Democrats who have spent years defending the current system as an ironclad defense of democracy. It’s a blatant attempt to stop the President from taking a straightforward step to stop potential fraud. Why would the resistance party be in such stark opposition to fighting fraud?
“Our Constitution’s Framers anticipated this kind of desire for absolute power. They recognized the menace it would pose to ordered liberty and the ways in which it would corrode self-government like an acid,” the complaint reads. “That careful division of authority has held fast against President Trump’s attacks.”
Trump isn’t, of course, trying to steal power. That’s typical Democrat projection. Trump is literally trying to prevent Democrats from stealing power in his order which reads: “The right to vote in Federal elections is reserved exclusively for citizens of the United States under the Constitution and Federal law.”
“Unlike the Biden Administration, which pursued its political agenda instead of fair elections, President Trump is putting the American people back in charge,” a White House fact sheet adds.
Trump knows exactly what’s going on, “The Democrats refuse to vote for Voter I.D., or Citizenship. The reason is very simple — They want to continue to cheat in Elections,” Trump wrote on social media. “This was not what our Founders desired.”
He also said his administration is formulating a rock-solid legal argument which he will soon reveal, noting further: “There will be Voter I.D. for the Midterm Elections, whether approved by Congress or not!”
A Senate panel is set to vote Wednesday on whether to advance a bill introduced by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) that would ban members of Congress from stock trades.
In an interview with reporters on Tuesday, Hawley said that the legislation has the support of House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), many Republicans, and even some Democrats. He also said Johnson told him President Donald Trump supported the original bill titled Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act.
“Members of Congress should be fighting for the people they were elected to serve—not day trading at the expense of their constituents,” stated Hawley in April when he originally introduced the bill. “Americans have seen politician after politician turn a profit using information not available to the general public. It’s time we ban all members of Congress from trading and holding stocks and restore Americans’ trust in our nation’s legislative body.”
The PELOSI Act would prohibit members of Congress and their spouses from buying, selling, or holding individual stocks while serving in office. Instead, lawmakers would be permitted to invest in diversified mutual funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), or U.S. Treasury bonds.
If enacted, current members of Congress would have 180 days to comply with the new rules, while newly elected lawmakers would be required to do so within 180 days of taking office.
Those who fail to comply with the PELOSI Act would be required to surrender any stock profits to the U.S. Department of the Treasury and could face financial penalties from the House and Senate ethics committees, according to Hawley’s office.
However, the legislation has run into a bit of a snag, according to Punchbowl News.
The outlet reported Tuesday that the Trump White House now may have some issues with it following some changes to language insisted upon by various parties to include certain stock trading bans for the president and vice president, as well — which Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Chairman Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) opposes.
Afterward, the White House Office of Legislative Affairs issued a statement clarifying why there were concerns with the changes.
“This was a last-minute deal struck to include the Executive Branch equities without touching base with the White House to discuss potential Article II concerns,” an official from the office told Punchbowl News. “Any pause comes purely from potential Article II infringement, not the Congressional ban.”
Paul reaffirmed to Axios his opposition to the legislation, arguing that it could block individuals like Trump from becoming president and create yet another barrier for those contemplating a run for public office.
Pressed over why he would then schedule a vote on it in his committee, Paul hinted at a potential deal, saying it was “to get two bills that I want passed through without being beleaguered by amendments.”
The Kentucky senator was enigmatic when pressed about whether the alluded-to filibuster would come from Hawley: “I’ll just leave it at that.”
In the past, President Trump has expressed an openness to the PELOSI Act. “A similar bipartisan bill passed the committee last year, which also would have forced the president and VP to divest from certain investments,” Axios pointed out.
The outlet added: “It’s this language from last year’s bill that is expected to replace the PELOSI Act ahead of the committee markup — though negotiations are still in flux. In response to White House pushback, Hawley also plans to make the ban effective only at the start of a member’s or elected official’s next term, per a source familiar with the plans.”
The name of the bill is purposeful. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has long been suspected of using insider information to inform her husband’s stock trades, which have been hugely successful over the past decade, especially.
That said, Pelosi has never been formally charged with the crime, nor has any evidence been presented to indicate illicit trading activities.