Will the Democratic Party’s Attempt to Thwart Democracy and Rig the 2024 Election Be Successful?
How many times have we heard from members of the Democratic Party that Donald Trump was a threat to democracy and that the people need the freedom to choose their own leaders? The Make America Great Again (MAGA) crowd tried to overturn the results of the most secure election in human history, and a violent insurrection almost turned the United States into a fascist dictatorship, after all. Aside from the fact that Democrats have historically argued that elections were rigged against them, we now have a full-scale assault on democracy by the very same “pro-democracy” party to strip Trump from the ballot in as many states as possible.
The first two states to ban Trump from ballot access were Colorado and Maine, and these rulings and dictates were based on a suspect interpretation of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states, “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” There are some legal scholars who will reason that Donald Trump was not an “officer” of the United States and cannot fall under the jurisdiction of this amendment (a lower court in Colorado argued that Trump engaged in insurrection but was not an officer), and although this seeming loophole may work for some judges, it is more than likely that the defendant’s actions would be judged based on the spirit of the amendment (not the strict construction view of it) and whether or not he engaged in an insurrection.
Thanks for reading Craig’s Newsletter! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, an insurrection is “an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government,” and in order to be classified as a revolt, an act must “renounce allegiance or subjection (as to a government)” or be an open rebellion against the state, not a riot or attempt to demonstrate objections to what was perceived as an invalid election. Unarmed protesters marching through the Capitol after being provoked by police on the one hand and permitted to enter and roam around on the other does not qualify as an insurrection under the standard definition (the definition may be changed to fit the narrative, but as it stands currently, that is not the case); and at best, the event on January 6, 2021 was an interruption or delaying of an official proceeding (if the trespassers were going to actually change the results of the election, they would have needed to be armed and have a plan for how to force the most powerful nation on earth to submit to the will of a few hundred people). Trump even told his supporters to protest “peacefully and patriotically,” and he later told them to “go home.” Even if January 6 were an insurrection, does it sound rational to pin him as a leader of an armed revolt when he was not even present nor did he tell them to use violence at the building or provide aid to them (even if you take his words out of context, words are not aid)? No, the Democratic Party overblows January 6 so that it can use the incident for its own benefit and to push agendas to eliminate its opponent from the ballot. If you would like to read about January 6, 2021 in more depth, feel free to check out my five-part article series on the subject (see the bottom of the link for the first four parts).
Section 1 of the same Fourteenth Amendment that Democrats pretend is being used as a legal basis for eliminating their political enemy states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” A simple reading of this would prevent states from barring citizens of the “privilege” of running for office without due process or equal protection of the laws, and if states want to prevent Trump from being a candidate in the 2024 presidential election, they first need to convict him of insurrection. Of course, they would not be able to do such a thing, so they resort to skipping Section 1 and arguing that Section 3 does not have a due process clause (a dishonest interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment).
None of the indictments brought forth by Special Counsel Jack Smith or his Democratic co-conspirators to attempt to bring about as many legal challenges against Trump as possible right before the 2024 election have even argued that the defendant engaged in insurrection (they are throwing every other legal charge that they can at him instead). In addition, Trump was acquitted for the charge of insurrection by the Senate during his impeachment trial.
In Colorado, the state’s Supreme Court seized on the lower court’s arbitrary ruling that Trump was an insurrectionist, though they did not face him directly and charge him with such an act, and applied Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to him. Therefore, four out of seven judges in the high court ruling declared that Trump had engaged in insurrection and was no longer eligible for being a contender in the election. The decision is being appealed to the United States Supreme Court, and because the Republican Party was able to delay the decision until January 4th (the date at which the state will begin printing the ballots), it now appears that unless the Supreme Court agrees with the Colorado high court’s decision, Trump will remain on the ballot after all. Even without Colorado’s nine electoral votes, which would go Democratic anyway, this single action was not seen as a challenge to Trump’s ultimate campaign run, but regardless, this undemocratic action set the precedent for other states to follow suit.
The next pathetic attempt by the Democratic Party to utilize a Civil War-era amendment, which has nothing to do with our current situation, was by the actions of Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows. She arbitrarily declared that the people of Maine are no longer welcome to vote for Donald Trump because he engaged in the unindicted action of insurrection, as per her standard of the definition (Trump was never indicted in Maine). Although she admitted that this move was unprecedented and pretended to be remorseful for her undemocratic actions, she used her position of power to unilaterally strip Trump from ballot access, without the approval of the state legislature, courts, or even other bureaucratic agencies. Since Maine splits two of its four electoral votes by district (the other two go to the statewide winner), Bellows has potentially taken away the choice of the people who live outside of the Portland and Augusta areas and given the electoral vote to Joe Biden, or whoever the Democratic Party’s candidate will be (Trump won this electoral vote in 2020). Although this will be challenged, the fact that the people have to rely on courts to be able to choose their preferred ruler is preposterous and proof that the Democratic Party is attempting to manipulate the election.
Maine and Colorado are hardly the only states with plans to sabotage Trump’s presidential bid, and Democrats have been working hard to cheat and remove him from the democratic process. Judges in Michigan, Minnesota, Florida, New Hampshire, Virginia (in this case, the challengers failed to provide proof of how having Trump on the ballot would be harmful), Arizona, Rhode Island, and West Virginia have already ruled that banning the former president from the primary ballot would be election meddling and an overreach of power by the judiciary, but this leaves the door open for a Fourteenth Amendment challenge for removal on the general ballot. In Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Kansas, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Utah, lawsuits were abandoned by the plaintiffs; and California Secretary of State Shirley Weber decided that it was in the best interest of the state to leave Trump on the ballot, even though state officials insisted that he be taken off. Court cases are still ongoing in Alaska, Louisiana, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming; but many of these will likely be dismissed as well. Cases where Trump had a legal or political victory are being appealed in Arizona, California, Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and West Virginia.
Specifically in New York, where I live, not only are there two lawsuits to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot, but there is an effort by the one-party and one-city-controlled state legislature to codify the permanent prohibition from public office of arbitrarily-declared insurrectionists (using the board of elections or attorney general to rule on each candidate). There is also a “conflict of interest” that arises because Attorney General Letitia James, who previously ran her campaign on a pledge to prosecute Trump, is also suing the former president for alleged fraud. Although New York is one of the most corrupt states in the country and run by the boss machine of the Democratic Party, courts in the state occasionally get things right, and therefore, there is a chance that the attempts to thwart democracy will be overturned. Regardless, it very unlikely that New York City could even be swayed to vote in favor of any Republican candidate anyway (Upstate New York is a heavily-conservative substate, which consists of roughly 95% of the land area and fifty of the sixty-two counties, but it has no voice in state politics). Plus, as we have seen, the New York Democrats have already stripped the Libertarian and Green Parties from ballot access in the general elections (under Governor Andrew Cuomo), so cheers to a fake democratic-advocating party taking away the choice of the people to freely elect their leaders (or at least have some kind of diversity on the ballot).
We must tread carefully, because we remember what happened in 1860 when there was such a political divide that a specific candidate was not on the ballot in several states (though the Republican Party largely chose not to waste time printing party ballots in states that it knew it could not win), and this time, the Democratic Party is using the guise of legal means to block the free choice of the people (we should just abandon all suspicion of the party’s efforts because Trump is just so bad of a dude that it is obvious that him telling his supporters to be peaceful and go home was such an insurrectionist conspiracy).
Will the 2024 election even occur in the first place? Will World War III or a hot war with China prevent the election from happening at its regularly-scheduled time? Will an American financial collapse cause the ruin of the United States and its election system before then, as Colonel Douglas Macgregor suggests? Will there be so much civil conflict that martial law is declared and the election suspended? Will there be a wide-scale CIA-orchestrated false flag cyber attack (or series of attacks in conjunction with the Israeli government and blamed on Iran or another foreign actor), as independent journalist Whitney Webb seems to think might be on the horizon? Will the CIA and FBI rig the election in favor of the Democratic Party (the CIA already rigs foreign elections, so it is not hard to believe that agencies would do so domestically), as ex-CIA analyst Dr. John Gentry predicts (we already saw such an attempt in 2016 and 2020, when the Hillary Clinton campaign, bolstered by the FBI, created a false Russia collusion hoax against Donald Trump, and later, a fake CIA-approved letter of former intelligence officers was created to assist Joe Biden and paint the Hunter Biden laptop story as Russian disinformation)? Although it is hard to know what will occur in 2024, one thing is for sure: it will be a wild ride full of political absurdities and authoritarian and manipulated occurrences.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website. Happy New Year!
Thanks for reading Craig’s Newsletter! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.