Two important regulatory developments are converging in the United States and the United Kingdom at the same time for the ill-fated COVID-19 investigational vaccines. In America, the Centers for Disease Control has logged more grim milestones as of June 4, 2021, with...
H.R.1 Election Integrity Act is a Wolf in Wolf’s Clothing
It is not surprising that climate activists support Bill H.R.1 – For the People Act of 2021.* After all, the bill would hugely benefit the Democrats over the GOP and increase the likelihood that the Dems will win most future elections. So, naturally, every Democrat in the House of Representatives sponsored H.R.1. And, at least for now, the Dems are the party of climate alarmism.
Of course, few climate campaigners would admit that H.R.1 greatly benefits the Democrats over the Republicans as activists want bipartisan support for their plans. Instead, they tell us that it will ensure fairer elections and give more voice to the average American, who, activists assert, will be highly supportive of drastic action to stop climate change. But neither claim makes any sense. H.R.1 is not for most people at all. And, regardless, most Americans do not support drastic action on climate change.
Let’s look at the second of these issues first—the idea put forward by climate campaigners that, given the choice, a large plurality of working-class Americans, especially those in black communities, would support severe action on climate change. This support is a natural outcome, climate campaigners assert, of the supposed fact that “Low-income and tribal communities, as well as communities of color, are increasingly and disproportionately affected by climate change.” For example, environmentalist Bill McKibben claimed in the New Yorker on March 17, 2021 (“The Voter-Suppression Bill Is Also Our Most Important Climate Legislation”):
Allowing Black and brown people, their rightful voice will help raise the prospects of climate legislation because they care about it more than anyone else in the country.
To support this idea, McKibben links to “Which racial/ethnic groups care most about climate change?” published by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. That article, in turn, cites three reports from the Yale program:
- Race, Ethnicity and Public Responses to Climate Change: April 2010
- Climate Change in the American Mind: April 2019
- Climate Change in the American Mind: November 2019
Besides the fact that the first report is 11 years old, it shows quite mixed results. For example, for data collected in 2008, while it does show greater concern on the part of Blacks and Hispanics on some issues, it also showed that more Whites than Blacks strongly supported efforts to:
- Fund more research into renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power.
- Require electric utilities to produce at least 20% of electricity from wind, solar, or other renewable energy sources, even if it cost the average household an extra $100 a year.
- Provide tax rebates for people who purchase energy-efficient vehicles or solar panels.
- Require automakers to increase the fuel efficiency of cars, trucks, and SUVS to 45 mpg, even if it means a new vehicle will cost up to $1,000 more to buy.
When one adds “Strongly support” to “Somewhat support” for the above actions, the difference between Blacks and Whites for these actions is so small it falls within the margin of error of the survey.
The survey also admitted:
Large majorities (67%) of Americans opposed a 25 cent per gallon gasoline tax [at the time of the survey, nationwide retail gas prices were about $3.25/gallon], even if the revenues were returned to taxpayers by reducing the federal income tax, including majorities of all racial and ethnic groups.
Neither the April 2019 nor the November 2919 “Climate Change in the American Mind” reports linked to above address differences between racial groups’ attitudes on climate change or energy at all.
And, don’t expect propagandists in the media and elsewhere to give coverage to polls that show, for example, in the case of the May 2021 Rasmussen Reports/The Heartland Institute poll, that more slightly more Whites than Blacks believe that climate change is caused primarily by human activity.
Another problem with public opinion polls on climate change is that, besides often being ‘push polls’ apparently designed to give answers desired by the originator, they are frequently misinterpreted by media and survey representatives. Take, for example, the “Politics & Global Warming, December 2020” report from the Yale program. The New York Times started an article (“Survey Finds Majority of Voters Support Initiatives to Fight Climate Change,” January 15, 2021) about the report by claiming:
A majority of registered voters of both parties in the United States support initiatives to fight climate change, including many that are outlined in the climate plans announced by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., according to a new survey.
They then cited Anthony Leiserowitz, who heads the Yale program, as saying:
These results show there’s very strong public support for bold, ambitious action on climate change and clean energy.
But, when respondents were asked what priority the president and Congress should put on “Global warming,” the response was anything but “very strong.” Here is the breakdown:
Very High: 29%
And later, in the preamble to asking whether respondents supported U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement, it was stated:
In 2015, the United States signed an international agreement in Paris with 196 other countries to limit the pollution that causes global warming.
Paris is focused mostly on reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, which is not “pollution,” of course. Yet, the Yale poll questions and the Yale report itself refer to this benign gas as “pollution,” or worse, “carbon pollution,” numerous times, undoubtedly swaying many poll respondents to give the results climate campaigners want. And the idea that CO2 causes significant global warming is merely a theory that does not stand up to serious scientific scrutiny.
H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., a Heartland senior fellow on environmental policy and the managing editor of Environment & Climate News, sums up the situation well:
After years of fearmongering and attempted indoctrination, people aren’t really that concerned about climate change when the rubber meets the road with action—or dollars in this case.
Finally, the idea that H.R.1 will ensure more fair elections is nonsensical. Indeed, the bill is so bad; it will completely shatter most American’s confidence in our election process. While the Constitution granted each state the responsibility to manage their election process, H.R.1 takes it away and grants that power to the federal government. In addition, H.R.1:
1- bars states from requiring photo IDs;
2- bars states from making their own laws about voting by mail;
3- mandates free mailing of absentee ballots;
4- allows 16-year-olds to register to vote while in school under teacher guidance and, of course, most teachers and young people are Democrats;
5- allows ballot harvesting. According to FindLaw.com, “Democrats appeared to prioritize ballot harvesting more than their Republican counterparts and were able to take over many offices that Republicans previously controlled.”
6- disallows states from clearing individuals from voting rolls when they move out of state;
7- forces states to implement mandatory voter registration eliminating voluntary choice, which benefits Dems most as more lower-class Democrats don’t register;
8- mandates that states allow felons to vote, which, again, benefits Dems as most felons are Democrat;
9- forces states to extend periods of early voting;
10- mandates same-day voter registration;
11- limits the ability of states to cooperate to see who is registered in more than one state;
12- criminalizes the act of asking a voter if they are an American citizen;
13- requires states to get permission from the federal government for changes as small as modifying hours of an election office or moving a voting location from a school gym to a library;
14- includes a 600% government match for political donations and authorizes more public dollars for campaigns;
15- wants to make Election Day a paid holiday for government workers.
The Biden administration makes no secret of its effort to turn America into a one-party state–their party, of course. They apparently envy Russia and China and hope to one day make the U.S. a communist nation where only the richest, most powerful people rule. The money behind the Democrats 2020 electoral success and the fraud they managed to pull off is supported by the same autocrats who now limit your free speech, the people behind Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, the Gates Foundation, and Google. The primary puppet master is apparently George Soros, who seems to be using his billions made in our capitalist system to remake America into what will effectively be a fascist or Communist state. Why he evidently hates the America of its founding fathers, we surely do not know. However, we do know that he has been financing one of the vilest groups ever—Black Lives Matter.
H.R.1, so fraudulently titled “For the People Act,” an obvious attempt to hide a wolf in sheep’s clothing, is not sneaking unnoticed through the nation. Twenty states have already sent a letter to Congressional Leaders promising swift consequences were H.R.1 to pass.
The attorney general of the 20 states wrote that “it is difficult to imagine a legislative proposal more threatening to election integrity and voter confidence.” It strips the state legislatures of their constitutionally granted authority to determine how elections will be held in their states.
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, the first signer of their letter, told Fox News, “this monstrosity of a bill betrays the Constitution, dangerously federalizes state elections, and undermines the integrity of the ballot box.”
A key paragraph in their letter described how H.R.1 was clearly unconstitutional is:
Under both the Election Clause of Article l of the Constitution and the Electors Clause of Article ll, States have principal – and with presidential elections, exclusive – responsibility to safeguard the manner of holding elections. The Act would invert that constitutional structure, commandeer state resources, confuse and muddle election procedures, and erode faith in our elections and systems of governance.
The attorney generals continue:
The exclusivity of state power to define the method of choosing presidential electors means that Congress may not force states to permit presidential voting by mail or curbside voting, for example.
In the final analysis, what is done by this Congress can be undone by the next, especially if the passage of H.R.1 helps produce a landslide defeat of those who vote for it. In the meantime, let’s hope a few Democratic Senators are not died in the wool socialists and will vote with reason and ethics, not to emulate the governments of China, Russia, Venezuela, and Cuba.
*Bill H.R.1 has passed the U.S. House of Representatives and now is under consideration by the U.S. Senate.
Use the code ‘OUTLOUD’ and receive your 20% discount on your first order.