Features Australia

Is HR1 confirmation of a stolen election?

Election fraud will only be encouraged with President Biden’s ‘For the People Act’

27 March 2021

9:00 AM

27 March 2021

9:00 AM

If confirmation were needed of a determination to ensure US elections are conducted in egregious breach of the Constitution and as fraudulently as many believe the recent presidential election was, ramming the For the People Act of 2021, H.R.1, through the House of Representatives fits the bill.

Whenever politicians anywhere claim they’re making voting easier, it means fraud will be easier to commit.

Politicians usually rely on one or more of the following five slippery practices to steal elections: registrations without proper verification, voting without identification, not by secret ballot in a polling booth (except where demonstrably unavoidable), voting over more than one day and counting the results without scrutineers present or actually able to see.

Information on fraud and constitutional breaches in the last US election was  suppressed by the American mainstream and social media, disgracefully now the Democrats’ propaganda arm. The Hunter Biden scandal exposing the longstanding family business selling crucial access and information to Beijing and foreign oligarchs is the most obvious example. Instead, as the Washington Post now admits, fabricated anti-Trump news made headlines across the world.

Most of Australia’s mainstream media chose to act as the craven echo of the US media. Campaigning hysterically against the only president in recent years who demonstrated he will not roll over for Beijing, they also campaigned against the Australian national interest.

While President Trump‘s claims about the election can of course be disputed, it is irresponsible journalism to constantly label them as ‘false’, ‘baseless’ or  even a ‘lie’.

Despite one prominent commentator dismissing those daring to question the integrity of the election as ‘conspiracy theory nuts’, substantial evidence of fraud was assembled and available to any journalist. Moreover, the case concerning constitutional breaches was overwhelming and supported by eighteen attorneys-general.

It was also untrue to tell Australians that Trump could not even establish a prima facie case of fraud. As with the Supreme Court majority, most judges refused to even hear the evidence.

Rather, they hid behind some technical reason to refuse to hear the case such as ‘standing’.

This judicial reluctance was repeated recently when six Supreme Court justices scandalously ducked cleaning up, for the future, the blatant constitutional breaches made in amending electoral laws. Sadly, those six included Trump appointments, Kavanaugh and Barrett.

So if H.R.1 can be rammed through the Senate and becomes law, will these judges have the courage to honour their oaths and hear the likely challenges, much less find it to be what it so clearly is, a constitutional outrage?

If they refuse to do their duty, the blatant fraud and constitutional breaches under which the 2020 presidential election was arguably ‘stolen’ could prevail unless the states use other strategies still open to them. Otherwise the United States will federally become as much a one-party entity, as are states like California and New York.

As the conservative Heritage Foundation reveals, H.R.1 would federalise and micromanage the election process administered by the states, imposing unnecessary, unwise and unconstitutional mandates on the states and reversing the decentralisation of the American election process. Not only would it implement nationwide the worst changes adopted for the 2020 election, it would erode and eliminate the states’ basic security protocols and interfere with their ability to determine the qualifications and eligibility of voters, ensure the accuracy of voter registration rolls, secure the fairness and integrity of elections, and participate and speak freely in the political process.

H.R.1 should not be read alone, it is to be a continuation of the disgraceful circumstances which preceded and surrounded the conduct of the 2020 presidential election.

In the meantime, such is the power of  the US mainstream media, even many sympathetic commentators around the world have been bullied into still attacking Donald Trump over his daring to  question the integrity of the election.

This was not only his right. In terms of his sacred oath, that is to the best of his ability to ‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States’, questioning the integrity of the election was a fulfilment of his fundamental duty as the 45th President.

Some of those same sympathetic commentators have also been persuaded to attack Donald Trump for what can best be described as something as vague as his alleged lack of the sort of ‘gravitas’ or ‘presidentialism’ presumably attained by both the present incumbent in the White House and by Barrack Obama.

This is no more than an example of the application of the old proverb, ‘When you want to hit somebody, you can always find a stick’.

As to Donald Trump not having gravitas or the requisite degree of presidentialism, he never claimed his inauguration would stop global warming, he did not on becoming president throw the borders open inviting all to enter freely including those with criminal records and those suffering communicable diseases including the Wuhan virus, he never used the IRS against opponents, he never wiretapped an opponent on fabricated grounds, he never funded Iran to develop nuclear energy nor derailed criminal action against Iran’s Hezbollah client when they were funnelling cocaine into the US, he never abandoned diplomats attacked by terrorists in a US embassy nor lie about the reason, he never unleashed a war, he never broke his promise to move the embassy to Jerusalem, he never hid from the media, he never allowed anyone in his administration to sell access and influence to foreign oligarchs, he never promised Russia that he would go soft after the election, nor did he ever fail to act to prevent the theft and transfer of American owned and created intellectual property to Beijing.

He did none of these things.

Instead, he made America and the West great again. The hope is, as he says, that the best is yet to come.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments