Author Archives: William Teach

Posted on by

NY Times Wonders If The Burger Is Nearing Extinction

See, I blame you quite often for your choice to cause the Earth to eat a tasty burger instead of having lettuce (raised organically without GMO’s, of course), beans, and water, or a plant based burger, which is pretty much the same thing, right? Along comes Frank Bruni, who wastes his opinion column with this

Is the Burger Nearing Extinction?
Meat has more competition — and less justification — than ever before.

I liked my patties thin and then I liked them thick. There was the Cheddar period, followed by the Roquefort interregnum. Sesame-seed buns gave way to English muffins as ketchup traded places with special sauce or even, God help me, guacamole, which really was overkill.

But no matter its cradle or condiment, the hamburger was with me for the long haul — I was sure of that.

Until now.

A few days ago I tripped across news that McDonald’s was testing a vegetable-based patty, coming soon to a griddle near you. The McPlant burger, they’re calling it — a McOxymoron if ever I’ve heard one. And McDonald’s is late to the game. Burger King has been selling a meatless Impossible Whopper since 2019. Dunkin’ has been serving a Beyond Sausage Breakfast Sandwich for nearly as long. (snip through other nasty meatless options)

This is the future: not a meatless one — not anytime soon — but one with less meat. I’m now sure of that. It’s the inevitable consequence of alarm over climate change, to which livestock farming contributes significantly. (Gates’s meatless musings were in the context of his new book, “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster.”)

When does the NY Times ban burgers at their giant building which has a massive carbon footprint?

Nature’s Fynd, which has attracted almost $160 million in funding, belongs to the third track: fermentation-derived proteins made from microorganisms, like fungi, that can be coaxed in a meaty, cheesy, creamy or milky direction. This track is arguably the most exciting — in terms of affordability, versatility, environmental gentleness and untapped possibility. There are microbes out there just waiting to feed us.

This opinion piece is actually looking more like an advertisement for Nature’s Fynd, because it spends a lot of time on the company.

Last month, Nature’s Fynd unveiled a direct-order breakfast combo of faux-sausage patties and a mock cream cheese for $14.99 and quickly sold out. It’s restocking and expects to have those products plus others — maybe the yogurt, maybe meatballs — on store shelves later this year. If all goes well, it will expand from there. A burger can’t be too far off.

Wait, what? $14.99? I can get a Big Breakfast (no pancakes) with a chocolate milk at McDonald’s or head to Bonjangle’s for a steak biscuit with egg, fries, and sweet tea, both under $5 before tax. This “eco-friendly” stuff looks expensive.

But given the long love affair that many humans, including this one, have had with animal meat, is there really a chance that these substitutes can make all that much headway in the near future? Thomas Jonas, the chief executive of Nature’s Fynd, said that a conspicuous change in America’s beverage-scape suggests so.

“Ten or 15 years ago, if you were looking at soy milk or almond milk, you were looking at something that was considered to be for health stores and tree-huggers and hippies, right?” he said. Now, both take up considerable space in every supermarket I visit, and there’s nary a coffee shop without one or the other. Nobody, Jonas argued, would have predicted that.

Both soy and almond, especially the latter, use immense amounts of water to produce their product. They’re fads. And, per the tenets of the Cult of Climastrology, bad for climate change. These people are all nuts. They’re aren’t eating or drinking this stuff because they like it but because their cult tells them to.

Posted on by

Gun Grabbers Set To Vote On Two Gun Control Bills This Week

On the surface these two bills don’t look incredibly burdensome, and, if it wasn’t for knowing what the gun grabbers want to actually do they might have some GOP support. We know that these pieces of legislation are just steps, and might actually have some poison pills

U.S. House set to vote on bills to expand gun background checks

The U.S. House of Representatives is set to vote on Wednesday on a pair of bills to expand background checks before gun purchases, two years after a similar House effort failed to make it through the Senate.

The House Rules Committee on Monday will take up the two bills that Democrats, who control the chamber, say are aimed at closing loopholes in the background check system.

One of the bills under consideration would make it illegal for anyone who is not a licensed firearms importer, manufacturer or dealer to transfer a firearm to any unlicensed person without a background check. The bill has exemptions, including gifts from relatives and transfers for hunting, target shooting and self-defense. A version was introduced in the Senate last week.

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the bill, which would extend background checks to gun shows and other sales, would close “dangerous loopholes in the existing background check system to help keep all of our communities safe.”

The other bill extends the initial background check review period to 10 days from three. Under existing law, the sale of guns can proceed if a background check is not completed within three days.

For the first bill, it requires a background check for almost every single transfer, but, at this time there are no requirements to register a firearm, so, how would Los Federales even know? If I sell my gun to my friend, the feds would have no idea unless that friend went on a rampage, then I’d just say they must have stolen it. And, heck, this is already the law in North Carolina.

Raising the review period makes it that much harder for people to get a firearm in a timely manner. Even with the 3 day period it can still take up to two weeks to receive a pistol purchase permit here in Wake County, and that was when we had a Republican sheriff. Make it 10 days and it could take a month.

The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) opposes both bills, arguing the three-day requirement “ensures that the FBI carries out its background check duties in an expedient and responsible manner.”

The NRA-ILA argues the other bill makes it a crime “to simply hand a firearm to another person” and suggests exceptions “are overly complicated and create many traps for unwary gun owners.”

One big question would be “what will Democrats try to stuff into either of these bills? Could be pork, could be unrelated wish list garbage, could be something like requiring registration or ammo taxes.” Regardless, even if passed as written, these are just small steps to the Dems gun grabbing. And the gun grabbers are demanding that Joe Manchin help nuke the filibuster to make this happen. If you have to do that, it tells you all you need to know how partisan this is.

Posted on by

Interesting: Mexican President Erects Barrier Around Presidential Palace

See, walls are fine for protecting political elites, just like we’ve seen in Washington, D.C., but, not good for protecting the border from unauthorized people attempting to cross illegally and sneak into the U.S. The Mexican president said he has “no opinion” of the wall, but, hailed China Joe’s halt of border wall construction

Mexican president defends 10-foot barriers to wall off women protesters

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador on Saturday said a metallic barrier to wall off the presidential palace ahead of a planned women’s march on International Women’s Day was to avoid provocation and protect historic buildings from vandalism.

In a country where femicides rose nearly 130% between 2015 and 2020, critics said the decision to erect the 10-foot-high (3-meter) barriers was symptomatic of Lopez Obrador’s apathy toward the crisis of violence afflicting women.

Ahead of International Women’s Day on Monday, barriers were also installed around other emblematic buildings and monuments in downtown Mexico City where a year ago tens of thousands of people protested rampant violence against women and impunity.

“We have to avoid provocation of people who only want to cause damage,” Lopez Obrador said at an event in Yucatan. “Imagine, if we don’t take care of the national palace and they vandalize it. What image will this send to the world?”

Hmm, we have to avoid provocation of people who only want to sneak into the U.S. and take jobs from citizens, drive down wages, drive drunk, assault citizens, steal people’s identity, commit arson and rape and child sexual assault and murder.” Well, hey, it’s always some excuse to protect the elites, be it walls, excuse me, fencing, fossil fueled limos and private jets, you name it.

Lopez Obrador reiterated that women had the right to protest and cited his own movement in 2006 as an appropriate form of peaceful protest.

“The presidency was stolen from us … and we protested but never broke glass. … I walked two, three times all the way from Tabasco to Mexico City,” he said. Lopez Obrador has repeatedly accused opponents of electoral fraud over the years.

Interesting. The article doesn’t complain about Lopez Abrador saying an election was stolen from him.

Interior Minister Olga Sanchez Cordero said on Twitter that the barriers were “for the protection of the women.”

Oh, right, right. Sure thing, Sparky.

Posted on by

Surprise: Michael “Robust Debate” Mann Claims Hurricane Activity Is Your Fault

His big tree ring study leading to the “hockey stick” was a bunch of mule fritters, so, sure, let’s listen to him again as he fear mongers

Humans, not nature, are the cause of changes in Atlantic hurricane cycles, new study finds

It’s well known in science that for more than a century hurricane activity in the Atlantic Ocean has oscillated between active and inactive periods, each lasting a few decades. For the past couple of decades, meteorologists and climate scientists have believed that this ebb and flow was due to a natural warming and cooling cycle built into the climate system called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or AMO.

The term was coined in the year 2000 by world-renowned climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Penn State University and author of the new book “The New Climate War.” The concept of the AMO has become ubiquitous in explanations and forecasts of active or inactive hurricane seasons.

The image below, from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), shows how hurricane activity seems to flow in roughly 60-year waves — active for around 30 years when the Atlantic in its warm phase and inactive for around 30 years when in the cool phase.

But today, in a newly released paper in the journal Science, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation may have been dealt a deadly blow — by the very man who named it. Mann now concludes the AMO is very likely an artifact of climate change, driven by “human forcing” from rising carbon emissions in the modern era and “natural forcing” due to massive volcanic eruptions in pre-industrial times.

It’s just very convenient that Mann, along with the rest of the Cult of Climastrology, can say “see, back then it was all nature but now it’s Your Fault,” eh?

The finding — which is bound to generate significant controversy and pushback from the weather and climate communities due to how broadly accepted the concept of the AMO has become — may very well shake the foundations of understanding of what has been driving historical hurricane cycles.

Simply put, if true, this discovery means that during the 20th century and beyond, humans — not natural variability — have been the main driving force in the up-and-down cycles of hurricane activity in the Atlantic Ocean.

I wonder how many faulty premises and data points will be in this study? Meh, it matters little to the Cult, because this now gives them an excuse to call for more taxes and government Authority.

 

Posted on by

Democrats Join Republicans In Scuttling $15 Minimum Wage From Senate COVID Bill

Donald Trump was 100% correct that this is something that states/cities should enact, not the federal government

Group of Senate Democrats and Republicans vote to keep $15 minimum wage out of Biden’s COVID stimulus bill

A group of Democratic senators joined all Senate Republicans in voting against Sen. Bernie Sanders’ proposal to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour on Friday.

The Vermont independent tried to add the provision to President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 stimulus bill as the Senate considered the $1.9 trillion measure. But the effort failed in a 58-42 vote with eight members of the Senate Democratic caucus voting against it.

The vote started at 11:03 a.m. EST Friday and didn’t officially end for nearly 12 hours as Democrats and Republicans negotiated changes to an extension of unemployment benefits.

The outcome of the vote could spell trouble for future Democratic attempts to raise the minimum wage, something Biden included in his initial stimulus proposal that passed the House last week.

It may or may not cause trouble in the future if they bring up a clean bill that is simply about raising the minimum wage, rather than including it in a completely unrelated bill, and, by unrelated, the minimum wage has nothing to do with COVID relief (and most of the bill is unrelated to COVID relief). It would have been against the ruled to include a minimum wage increase in the bill that they know they will have to reconcile (which also shows that it is highly partisan if they have to go that route.)

Republicans have been united against the $15 proposal, citing opposition by some small businesses and an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office which estimates it would result in the loss of as many as 1.4 million jobs. The same analysis said it would boost the pay for as many as 27 million Americans and would lift nearly 1 million out of poverty.

Higher wages increase the cost to employers of producing goods and services, and those costs are generally passed on to consumers who usually react by purchasing fewer goods and services, according to the CBO. As a consequence, employers faced with having to scale back their output usually cut back their workforce.

I’m rather shocked that the USA Today allowed that 2nd paragraph, despite being the truth as to how the economy and consumers react. The question now is not about how many times Comrade Bernie will attempt to add the $15 MW to unrelated bills, but, 1. whether the GOP can kill off lots of the unrelated garbage and unnecessary spending

and 2. what happens when the reconciled bill is reconciled with the House version, which does contain the $15 MW increase. Will the House drop it, or try to force it back in even with the knowledge that it won’t pass the Senate? And another question, why hasn’t the GOP simply submitted legislation that provides for the $1,400 checks, unemployment relief, vaccinations, and other COVID specific measures? Heck, introduce one for the checks as a stand alone, force Dems to vote on it.

Posted on by

How Farmers Can (Be Forced By Government) To Fight Climate Apocalypse Or Something

It’s always great when people who aren’t anywhere close to being experts, or even amateurs, in a field like to tell the experts how to do their jobs

How farmers could fight climate change (and make a profit)

Agriculture has never been a principal focus of efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. But farm emissions — which make up about 10% of the U.S. total — are coming under increasing scrutiny as Democrats take the reins of agricultural policy and farmers themselves awaken to the threats of climate change. One strategy in particular is getting attention this year: encouraging farmers to view emissions reduction and carbon sequestration as potential sources of income.

The idea is fairly straightforward. Farmers would take steps to reduce their carbon output, such as reducing tillage to avoid releasing soil carbon, planting cover crops to hold carbon in the soil, applying manure treatments and “digesters” to limit emissions of methane, and using nitrogen fertilizer more precisely to lower nitrous-oxide emissions. In return, they could sell credits to companies looking to reduce their own climate footprint. Private markets for such credits are already springing up, and Congress took measures to encourage similar exchanges in the 2008 Farm Bill.

So, Democrats are going to use government force to “encourage” farmers to not use their fields to grow food, and to use older, less safe processes like spraying shit instead of modern treatments on the growing food. And the farmers will somehow make money by selling credits on these mythical private markets for credits, which are really backed by and mandated by Government.

But much about this concept has yet to be worked out, notably the basic question of how to measure the climate value of various farming practices. Here the U.S. Department of Agriculture could help. A Senate bill introduced last year would direct the USDA to create standards for measuring the effectiveness of climate-protection measures on farms, certify people to help farmers take such measurements and verify their value, and work with the Environmental Protection Agency to monitor private carbon-credit markets.

More government interference and control of the agriculture sector. Which means cost increases for food. All for a mythical problem.

Such exchanges could go a long way toward encouraging farmers to reduce emissions and sequester carbon. But they won’t work unless regulators can ensure that they’ll actually bring substantial climate benefits. The danger is that a carbon-credit system might instead mainly enable airlines, investment funds, energy firms, agribusinesses and other companies to excuse their own greenhouse-gas emissions by purchasing inexpensive and largely meaningless offsets.

It won’t make a difference in the climate at all. It will make farmers, who are independent spirits, resist like heck.

By setting standards for measurement and verification, and monitoring the private markets, the USDA can maximize the potential of “carbon farming.” It can also extend the benefits beyond the big operations, which can most easily demonstrate emissions reductions, to smaller farms — by helping them participate in collective efforts. If such measurements proved reliable, the Biden administration’s proposal to create a government “carbon bank” — which would buy credits from farmers for a guaranteed price per ton — might act as a powerful incentive for farmers big and small.

Sure sounds less like a private market and more like government dominance, eh?

That said, carbon trading does hold significant promise for limiting emissions on the farm — so long as it’s based on verifiable practices that will allow markets to accurately value the credits. The first step is to get the right data.

I suggest that would start implementing these types of carbon trading schemes on credentialed news outlets, print, TV, and even Internet, let’s see if they’re good with trading schemes when they apply to their own industry. No? They’d be mad? Huh.

Posted on by

Washington Post Complains That 1,400 Americans Died During Reading Of COVID “Relief” Bill

The Credentialed Media seems pretty upset that a $1.9 trillion bill, which has very little in the way of actual COVID relief, was forced to be read on the Senate floor. Seriously, why is it necessary for anyone to know what’s in it, and for Senators who are going to vote on it to understand what they’re voting for?

Action on Stimulus Bill Halts as Senate Clerks Read All 628 Pages Aloud

With President Biden’s nearly $2 trillion stimulus bill moving toward passage, Senator Ron Johnson brought proceedings to a halt on Thursday by demanding that Senate clerks recite the 628-page plan word by word, delaying action to register his objections.

The maneuver by Mr. Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, was unlikely to change any minds about the sweeping pandemic aid plan, which would deliver hundreds of billions of dollars for vaccine distribution, schools, jobless aid, direct payments to Americans and small business relief, and has broad bipartisan support among voters. Republicans signaled that they would be unified against it, and Democrats were ready to push it through on their own, using a special fast-track process to blow past the opposition.

But in the Senate, where even the most mundane tasks are subject to arcane rules, any senator can exploit them to cause havoc. The exercise was Republicans’ latest effort to score political points against a measure they were powerless to stop and to punish Democrats with a time-consuming, boredom-inducing chore.

“Is he allowed?” Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, muttered quietly when Mr. Johnson tried to explain after demanding the reading.

You can pick up the derision from the NY Times that someone would dare do this, right? Many other outlets take a similar tone. But, nothing tops Philip Bump at the Washington Post for pure, unadulterated moonbattery

While the Senate reads the coronavirus relief bill, nearly 1,400 Americans may die from the virus

Shortly after Jan. 5, it became apparent that Congress was likely to pass legislation substantially bolstering economic relief provided in response to the coronavirus pandemic. What changed was that two Democrats won runoff races for the Senate in Georgia, giving the party and incoming President Biden enough votes to pass the bill Biden wanted to see.

It’s been nearly two months since that election and, after passing the House, the $1.9 trillion bill is awaiting a vote in the Senate. But that won’t happen for a while yet, not because there aren’t the votes to pass it but, instead, because Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) has decided to force the chamber to read the 628-page bill in its entirety. The effect isn’t to change the outcome. Instead, it’s to delay the inevitable. (snip)

It’s meant to be a nuisance. But, as CNN’s Brian Fung pointed out on Twitter, it carries an additional weight this time. Included in the funding bill is financial support for millions of Americans, as well as billions of dollars meant to bolster vaccine distribution and testing — tools which could bring the pandemic to an end more quickly.

At this moment, on this issue, time can be measured in human lives. On average, nearly 2,000 people a day are dying from covid-19, the disease caused by the virus. That’s a death about once every 44 seconds. It’s an improvement over the end of January, when people were dying at a rate faster than two a minute. But it’s still a far faster rate than the country had seen for much of the pandemic.

Got that? The Democratic Party controlled House sat on putting forth a bill and voting on it (actually, much longer because Democrats refused to provide much in the way of help because it would hurt Trump) for months (and they filled it with a partisan wish list, unrelated to COVID measures, and unnecessary spending) then sat on it for a week or so before sending to the Senate, but, only now is taking a few hours to read a crazy bill a problem and killing Americans.

How much of this bill actually saves American lives? Just 1% is for vaccination. Heck, it doesn’t even have the $2,000 checks Biden promised again and again (he never promised it would add to the $600 to make that $2K). 99% of it won’t save American lives, and, if this was so darned important, why didn’t they take it up in January? The House could have sent it over to the Senate the minute the Georgia Dem Senators took their seats. But, no.

Given the current rate at which people are dying of covid-19, we can expect just shy of 1,400 Americans to succumb to the disease during that period.

It’s not the case that those lives would have been saved had the bill passed sooner. But it is the case that more immediate assistance for things like vaccines or bolstering people’s bank accounts is better than slower relief. Again, the question isn’t if the bill passes, it’s when. In that context, the argument for a 17-hour delay isn’t a robust one.

The same people that constantly yammer about Saving Our Democracy are mad when Democracy is in action, when people have to actually be told what is in a bill. A 17 hour delay when Democrats have basically been jamming up relief for 8 months.

Posted on by

#Unity: House Passes Partisan Police “Reform” Act Named After George Floyd

Democrats decided to take some sound ideas and ramp them up to Partisan Category 4

House Approves Police Reform Bill Named After George Floyd

House lawmakers on Wednesday passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, a police reform bill that would ban chokeholds and eliminate qualified immunity for law enforcement. The 220-212 vote came nine months after Floyd, a 46-year-old Black man, was killed by Minneapolis police officers last spring.

The wide-ranging legislation would also ban no-knock warrants, mandate data collection on police encounters, prohibit racial and religious profiling and redirect funding to community-based policing programs.

“Never again should an unarmed individual be murdered or brutalized by someone who is supposed to serve and protect them,” said Rep. Karen Bass, D-Calif., in a statement. “Never again should the world be subject to witnessing what we saw happen to George Floyd in the streets in Minnesota.”

Banning chokeholds is nice, but, sometimes police need to use them to grab hold of a perp. It’s easy to ban them, but, in practice, when an officer is attempting to grab hold of a violent criminal, it is the easiest way to grab them. It’s knowing when to let go. But, it’s doing away with qualified immunity that is the worst part of this, and will lead to huge numbers of police officers quitting the force, especially in Democratic Party run areas where crime is rampant, and would see fewer people wanting to be police officers, making the rest of us who aren’t criminals less safe.

No knock warrants are a big problem, but shouldn’t be banned: they should be reformed to make sure there are more safeguards and a stronger approval method. Profiling? We all profile constantly, and police use profiles to understand potential crimes. “Community based policing programs”? Left wing idiocy which will make the rest of us less safe.

In debate on the House floor Wednesday evening before the vote, Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota said Minneapolis is still traumatized by Floyd’s death. “Time and time again we have witnessed the people who are sworn to protect our communities abuse their power,” she said.

Traumatized? She didn’t know George Floyd. Or his family. She’s just grandstanding. Perhaps she should ask the business owners who saw their businesses trashed by the rioters. And those who were assaulted. The families of those who couldn’t get their loved one to a hospital because Ilhan’s peeps were blocking the streets, or a fire truck couldn’t make it through the blocked roads.

(KYOUTV) Iowa Congresswomen Ashley Hinson and Mariannette Miller-Meeks both issued statements on their opposition to The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives by a narrow vote of 220-212 on Wednesday night.

In Hinson’s statement, she wrote that “Law enforcement officers in Iowa and across this country put their lives on the line every day to keep our communities safe. It’s reprehensible that House Democrats would bring forward legislation to defund police departments while relying on law enforcement to protect our Capitol from imminent threats...In a chamber safeguarded by Capitol Police.

In her statement, Miller-Meeks wrote that “We need serious bipartisan police reform that holds bad officers accountable” but that “The Justice in Policing Act would eliminate qualified immunity, which would make recruitment and retention difficult,” adding that “In effect, this is a backdoor way to defund the police.”

And this bill would interfere with States Rights on how to run their police departments. This is, as usual, a highly partisan bill. The GOP attempted to pass Senator Tim Scott’s JUSTICE Act, which was well thought out and didn’t destroy the police, but, Democrats blocked it with the filibuster (you know, that thing Democrats say they hate). Dems already knew the George Floyd bill was 100% partisan, but, still voted and passed it again. And, again, the only way it makes it through the Senate is with nuking the filibuster.

Posted on by

#Unity: House Passes HR1, The “For The Democratic Party Power Act”

Democrats gave this bill a whirl last year, when it passed on strictly party lines, and then was never brought up in the Senate, because it is a Category 5 partisan bill. The Institute for Free Speech obliterated it when it was first introduced in early 2019, because it is great for certain politicians, bad for groups, citizens, and free speech. This was one of the things I was warning about if people decided to vote for Biden because Trump has mean tweets

House passes voting rights and elections reform bill

The House passed a sweeping election reform and voting rights bill along party lines on Wednesday in a 220-210 vote.

The For The People Act, better known as H.R. 1 — has been a top priority for Democrats, who argue restoring voters’ faith in the electoral process is more important than ever after former President Trump repeatedly asserted unfounded claims the election was stolen. The Biden administration has strongly advocated for its passage.

“In the wake of an unprecedented assault on our democracy, a never before seen effort to ignore, undermine, and undo the will of the people, and a newly aggressive attack on voting rights taking place right now all across the country, this landmark legislation is urgently needed to protect the right to vote and the integrity of our elections, and to repair and strengthen American democracy,” the White House said in a statement of administrative policy.

The measure would require states to offer mail-in ballots, a minimum of 15 days of early voting and calls for online and same-day voter registration. The legislation also calls for the creation of independent commissions to draw congressional districts in an effort to put an end to partisan gerrymandering. It would also provide additional resources to stave off foreign threats on elections, enable automatic voter registration, and would make Election Day a national holiday for federal workers.

Supporters of the bill said it’s a necessary step to restore faith in the electoral system and tackle dark money in politics, arguing it expands voting rights, increases transparency in elections and creates new ethics rules to tamp down on corruption.

Under the legislation, the Citizens United Supreme Court case, which dissolved certain limits on corporate and union political spending, would be overturned and coordination between super PACs and candidates would be prohibited.

That’s rather the way most articles from the Credentialed Media go, lauding the bill in flowing terms. But, there’s a reason why it was passed twice strictly on party lines

Republicans have blasted the measure as a power grab by Democrats, arguing that the provision allowing for voters to designate a person to return their ballot equates to ballot harvesting and opens the door for election fraud. They have also slammed language allowing felons to vote.

“Second: H.R. 1 would legalize voting for convicted felons all over the country even if they were convicted of election fraud. Does that make sense to you? Not only is this dangerous, it’s unconstitutional,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said in a floor speech on Tuesday.

“Third: H.R. 1 would weaken the security of our elections and make it harder to protect against voter fraud. Here’s how: It would automatically register voters from DMV and other government databases. Voting is a right, not a mandate,” McCarthy said. “In most cases, this legislation would actually prevent officials from removing ineligible voters from the rolls and would make it much more difficult to verify the accuracy of voter information. So future voters might be underage or dead or illegal immigrants or registered two or three times. Democrats just don’t care.”

It’s actually much worse than that, as John Fund points out

HR 1 would cement all of the worst changes in election law made in blue states in 2020 and nationalize them. Federal control of elections would be the norm. States would be relegated to colonial outposts that carry out Washington DC’s mandates. ‘Democracies die when one party seizes control of the elections process, eliminates the safeguards that have protected the integrity of the ballot, places restrictions on free speech, and seizes the earnings of individual citizens to promote candidates they may abhor,’ says Rep. Tom McClintock, a California Republican. ‘Democracies die by suicide, and we are now face to face with such an instrument.’

Does HR 1 justify such apocalyptic rhetoric? Sadly, yes. Hans von Spakovsky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission, says that while the Constitution does allow Congress to override the power of states to decide ‘the time, manner and place’ of federal elections nothing on the massive scale of HR 1 has ever been attempted.

He consulted other former members and assembled a short summary of the worst provisions of HR 1:

  • Degrade the accuracy of registration lists by requiring states to automatically register all individuals on state and federal databases. This would include many ineligible voters, including aliens
  • It would require states to allow 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to register. Combined with a ban on voter ID, this would allow underage individuals to vote
  • Prevent election officials from checking the eligibility and qualifications of voters and removing ineligible voters
  • Ban state-voter ID laws by forcing states to allow individuals to vote without an ID and merely signing a statement in which they claim they are who they say they are
  • Create vague and broad language that could be used to criminally charge someone who questions the eligibility of a voter
  • Force disclosure of names of Americans who donate to nonprofit organizations — thus subjecting them to political harassment
  • Declare statehood for Washington DC to be ‘constitutional’ despite evidence it is not
  • And finally, HR 1 would effectively ban nonprofits from contacting a member of Congress or their staff about pending legislation — a direct assault on the right of Americans to petition their government

That’s a shortened list of a shortened list. This is all about entrenching Democrats in office, and, notice that there are at least two First Amendment violations. Dare note that someone is ineligible to vote in a situation? You could be held criminally liable. Years ago I made the NC GOP and NC election board aware that I had received in the mail a letter that gave a women residency for voting rights at my address. This person was a Charlotte, NC resident, completely different part of the state. This was an attempt to be able to vote twice. I would be held criminally liable for doing that now. Then you take away the Right of people to petition their government.

This is, really, one of the most partisan bills ever passed in the House. What happened to Joe Biden calling for unity and bipartisanship? Nothing the Democrats are doing is anything but hugely partisan. Can it pass the Senate? The only way is to nuke the filibuster, something Joe Manchin said he would never vote to do. And, if they manage to suspend the filibuster for this vote, they might not get the 50 votes they need to allow Kamala to make it 51. And, if they somehow make it pass, the lawsuits will be amazing, and it is something the Supreme Court would need to take up forth with, since this deals directly with Bill Of Rights matters. If there’s no severability, it would be killed in whole.

Seriously, are Democrats asking for a civil war? Because this is the type of legislation that leads that way.

Quick More: I’d forgotten about one other issue among so many, and this is a big one that would, well, should, kill it in any lawsuits if passed, as pointed out by Betsy McCaughey

The authors of the Constitution worried that Congress would try to seize control of presidential selection using dirty tricks like those in HR 1. That’s why they acted to “to take the business as far as possible out of their hands,” according to Charles Pinckney, a framer from South Carolina.

Congress, said Pinckney, “had no right to meddle” in it. The framers provided in Article II, Sec. 1 that only state legislatures would have the power to determine how the president is chosen. No national rules.

And since every other national election is for president, this would be unconstitutional. And, it would take a constitutional amendment to make D.C. a state.