Leftist Officials Move To Delay British Elections As Their Approval Ratings Collapse

One of the most revealing narratives that surfaced during the 2024 US election campaign was the argument from establishment journalists that the Constitution and the voting system might be allowing “too much freedom” for the general public.  How can this be true?  Progressive activists claim that voter choice can be manipulated by abuses of free speech (disinformation) and that without controls on that speech the Constitution essentially has a built in self destruct mechanism.

Outlets like the New York Times made these arguments specifically in reference to the presidential bid of Donald Trump.  Trump, leftists assert, represents the rise of “far-right fascism” in America and the normal rules of the democratic process no longer apply.  They argue that he must be stopped at all costs.  

One could dismiss all this rhetoric as the coping and seething of sore losers, but it goes well beyond that.  

The self destructing democracy theory would be interesting, except that it’s driven completely by the arrogance, elitism and biases of political leftists hellbent on keeping power for themselves.  When a group of people believes that they represent the totality of the “greater good” and that their ideas should never be questioned or challenged because to do so is akin to heresy, that’s what we call zealotry.  This is exactly what progressives have become – So much so that across the western world they have deemed themselves righteous enough to delay or sabotage the election process.

Keep reading

Top Ohio Lawmaker Wants To Restrict Marijuana Homegrow Rights And Strengthen THC Potency Caps

Republican lawmakers in Ohio are once again aiming to scale back parts of the state’s voter-approved marijuana legalization law, looking to a proposal from last year that would have decreased allowable THC levels in state-legal cannabis products, reduced the number of plants that adults can grow at home and increased costs for consumers at dispensaries.

Those provisions, backed by Senate President Matt Huffman (R), were added to separate House legislation last year and passed by the Senate. House lawmakers ultimately blocked the Senate changes, however, with some members emphasizing the importance of protecting the will of voters, who passed the legalization law on a 53–47 margin in November 2023.

Come next month, however, Huffman will take over as speaker of the House, having won a seat in last month’s election and subsequently being chosen for the leadership role by colleagues. The move is widely expected to give Huffman new power to push his marijuana proposal forward.

“There were some fundamental flaws in the initiative that was introduced and passed by the voters, which you usually have when there’s not a vetting from all sides,” Huffman told reporters last week about the voter-approved marijuana law. “The bill that the Senate passed last December addresses many of those things.”

Initially, changes backed by Hoffman would have eliminated home cultivation rights entirely for Ohio adults and criminalized all cannabis obtained anywhere other than a state-licensed retailer. Those amendments would have also reduced the marijuana possession limit, raised sales tax on cannabis purchases and diverted funding away from social equity programs and toward law enforcement.

Keep reading

Nebraska AG Prepares To Ask Supreme Court To Overturn Voter-Approved Medical Marijuana Measures

The Nebraska Attorney General’s Office filed a second “amended cross-claim” Friday on behalf of Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R) in a lawsuit against two successful medical cannabis measures.

The brief formally adds allegations of circulator fraud and widespread malfeasance to Evnen’s complaint. However, Lancaster County District Judge Susan Strong anticipated those arguments already last Tuesday when she dismissed the case and ruled in favor of the ballot sponsors behind Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana.

The AG’s Office has not formally filed an appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court, but Attorney General Mike Hilgers (R) told the Nebraska Examiner on Monday that his office was “taking advantage” of court rules that allow a party to formally amend a cross-claim, even after a verdict, to conform to the evidence presented at trial.

“It’s just a post-trial motion,” Hilgers said Monday. “We want to make sure our case is fully prepared for an appeal.”

Keep reading

Why do we only support mob-rule when our mob wins?

The internet and the streets are awash with US Democrat voters moaning about the tyranny they fear will be imposed upon them by Republican voters. As recently highlighted by Larken Rose, their hypocrisy has reached the level of absurdity. If they don’t like mob-rule, why do they keep voting for it?

“Representative democracy” is not democracy. Demokratia is power exercised directly by the people, not a tiny gaggle of oligarch serving toadies who claim to represent the people. “Representative democracy” is just another term for oligarchy.

In a real democracy the legislature, the executive and the judiciary are exclusively formed from or controlled by a random, rotating sortition of the people. The people design legislation, the people enact legislation and, most importantly, the people judge the practical application of statute and precedent law in courts formed and led by randomly selected juries.

In a democracy, the jury is sovereign with the united and annexed power to annul any and all legislation or ruling wherever statute or precedent law is found wanting in a jury-led trials. The legislature, the executive and the judiciary are wholly subservient to the people through trial by jury.

The jury’s only concern is justice. It makes no difference to a democratic jury what the legislature seeks, what the executive deems necessary or what instructions the judiciary tries to assert. Wherever and whenever a human being breaks the written law, but the jury finds them not guilty of any injustice, then the failure lies with the law, as it is written, not with the innocent accused. In such circumstances, any democratic jury can overrule extant statute and precedent in the interest of justice—annulment.

Despite the existence of Common Law jurisdictions, which technically allow juries to annul, on neither side of the Atlantic does anyone live in a democracy. Democracy is not the model of government we allow to persist. Whether we call it a constitutional monarchy, a supranational political union or constitutional federal republic, democracy is exercised nowhere.

Democracy is governance by trial by jury and we don’t need any form of government to establish a democracy. Any other political system, no matter how vociferously its proponents demand we call it a democracy, is not democracy.

Instead of democracy, which demands that we each take full responsibility for every aspect of our society and serve justice, we prefer representative democracy—oligarchy. We take responsibility for nothing and are the willing slaves of oligarchs who we passively allow to rule us unjustly under the guise of government.

Every four of five years we participate in anointment ceremonies we call national elections. We reaffirm our slavery to the will of the oligarchs because we wrongly imagine, by choosing a different oligarch aligned mob, we are exercising some sort of sociopolitical choice. Assuming the election isn’t rigged—and they clearly are from time to time—the full scope of our so-called political choice is to determine which oligarch faction will rule us unjustly for the next few years.

While oligarch gangs vie for supremacy, they all agree on the policy trajectory they want to force us down. In our “representative democracies” we will all submit to Sustainable Development-based global governance—Technocracy; programmable digital currency, in one form or another, is inevitable; digital ID will be enforced somehow, whether we want it or not; the bio-security state and polycrisis state of exception are permanently fixed; construction of the digital gulag will be completed, either by deception or force; the new monetary system, that will be foisted upon us, will accelerate the transfer of wealth—of all kinds—from us to the oligarchs and terrorism, genocide, democide, war, propaganda and deception will remain the oligarch’s favoured tools to instill fear in us as they continue to rule us using the strategy of tension.

We can’t vote harder with any rational expectation of changing any of this. We have been comprehensively deceived and it is about time we recognised it.

None of us have the right to force anyone else to do anything. The only exception is our duty to ensure justice prevails when one among us causes harm or loss to others. While others live in peace and practice justice, our right to control others simply does not exist.

The oligarchs have convinced us we can elect their representative puppets to exercise authority, not just over ourselves, but over everyone else. The resultant governments claim they rule by consent, but it isn’t informed consent and therefore no consent at all. If it were, we would all realise that we cannot devolve to government authoritarian rule that none of us can exert in the first place. We cannot bestow upon government that which we do not possess.

The consent of the governed and the social contract are propagandist’s myths. We have never given our informed consent to be ruled and no one has even seen, let alone signed, any contract whereby they agreed to be ruled. The oligarchs deem that we have consented to their mythical authority and have agreed to their invisible social contract simply by virtue of the fact we were born or live in the jurisdictions they illegitimately claim for themselves.

The oligarch owned legacy media hammers home the illusion of the requisite choice in the run up to every anointment ceremony. They promote the fiction that it is our duty to impose the rule of our preferred mob on the people we don’t agree with.

Our only duty is to live in peace by safeguarding justice. The notion that we can do this by absolving ourselves of all responsibility and handing over all decision making power to a handful of corrupt, self-serving robber-baron sycophants is ludicrous. That, in any event, none of us has any right to do so only emphasises the insanity.

Having realised they have just lost the representative democracy game, what is most remarkable about the Democrat’s angst is their envisaged solution. They are determined to regain representative political power, despite recognising that losing power means they have to accept the diktats of what they consider a tyranny.

Keep reading

Donald Trump Has A Mandate To Implement Nationwide Election Integrity Laws

Donald Trump’s resounding victory over Kamala Harris was historically consequential: it was the first time a Republican presidential candidate carried both the electoral college and popular vote in twenty years.

More than that, however, was the lasting, even generational, impact it will have on our politics for decades to come.

If Donald Trump, who had been target number one of weaponized lawfare like nothing seen in our history, had not won this race, America as we know it would have been destroyed for good.

Now there is at least a chance for restoration — if not a new golden age.

The restoration must begin with rigorous election integrity laws.  President Trump’s popular vote win affords him with a mandate that he did not have (at least officially) in his first term.

The feat is made even more impressive by the certainty that fraud and corruption still impacted the results of this race.

The idea that the President had to win over and above what should be the normal threshold to victory – hence, this year’s mantra, “too big to rig” – must be considered unacceptable moving forward.

It should be a top priority for any first world country, especially the United States, to have confidence in its election procedures.

It is inexcusable that in a democratic society, the people would even harbor the slightest doubt about the integrity of their election laws – and the legitimacy of the outcome.

Alas, the way America runs its elections has become a joke around the world.

The fact that we do not have a national standard to check for citizenship in the form of voter ID is a disgrace and embarrassment.

As many commentators, including Elon Musk, have noted on X and elsewhere, it’s striking that every state without voter ID laws voted for Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate, this cycle.

Among other things, Democrats have long opposed voter ID laws for winning elections; in a few cases, they have even advocated for permitting illegal aliens and other undocumented persons to vote in local and state elections.

Keep reading

Questionable Maricopa County Ballot Dump Gives Kari Lake’s Arizona Senate Opponent Additional 12,000 Vote Advantage as Counting Expected to Continue Several More Days – Decision Desk HQ Calls Race

Maricopa County released another batch of election results totaling 104,407 ballots Saturday night, and it’s clear that something’s not right.

The results went 42.4% for Kari Lake and 54.5% for her opponent, Democrat Ruben Gallego, who is actually a neighbor and friend of Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer. But it’s not over yet, as hundreds of thousands of ballots are yet to be counted.

Remember that Stephen Richer, the county’s top election official, also hates Kari Lake with a passion. The Gateway Pundit reported on a deposition he gave in his defamation lawsuit against Kari Lake, where it was revealed that he contemplated running for Senate to “make life hell for Kari Lake” and admitted that he is “anti-MAGA” in private text messages. This comes after he ran an anti-MAGA PAC against Kari Lake in the 2022 election–the same election where 60% of vote tabulators failed and caused four-hour wait times for Republican voters.

Keep reading

National Elections Expose the Sham That Is Centralized “Democracy”

The 2024 election is over, and in some states, big majorities voted for the winner Donald Trump. In Wyoming, Trump won 72 percent of the vote. In fact, more than 60 percent of the voting population went for Trump in 13 states.

Fortunately for the majorities in those states, they’ll get the president they voted for.

However, the outcome would have been different if fewer than a million people—in a nation of 330 million—had changed their votes in Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Michigan. Then, Kamala Harris would now be the president-elect.

She would have won even though the voters of more than a dozen states had lopsided majorities in favor of Trump.

Moreover, Kamala could have won even though there was far less enthusiasm on her side. That is, only a single state, Massachusetts, had a voting majority of more than 60 percent for Kamala Harris.

Even If You Win, You Lose

We could come up with many similar examples in the past 24 years. In 2012, for example, Mitt Romney won 60 percent or more of the vote in nine states. 72 percent of the voters went for Romney in Utah. But, in the end, those supermajorities meant nothing, and the people of Utah, Oklahoma, Alabama, and several others—who had voted nearly 2 to 1 for Romney—got Barack Obama as president. In 2020, by the way, more than 60 percent of the voters in ten states voted against Joe Biden.

These facts should be remembered the next time that some pundit or politician tries to tell us that democracy is “the voice of the people” or “the will of the majority.” The question that has to be asked is “which majority?” and “which people?”

Indeed, for the people of Utah in 2012 or Massachusetts in 2024, the president that rules over those states was chosen by people who don’t live in those states. Even if 100 percent of the voters in a state vote against a certain candidate, they could still end up with that candidate as president based on the votes of people living somewhere else. Moreover, given that many states don’t have voter ID, it stands to reason that even if a large majority of your state votes for a certain candidate, foreign nationals in some other state may ultimately make the decision for you.

It’s difficult to see how such a method expresses “the will of the majority” when a tiny majority or plurality nationwide so often nullifies overwhelming majorities in a multitude of US states.

Keep reading

Where Are the Missing 11 Million Voters?

As of this writing on Friday, Donald Trump’s popular vote total stood at 74,269,316. By the time you see this article and click on that link, however, that total is certain to be higher. Trump’s final popular vote total has now exceeded his official 2020 total of 74,225,926. Kamala Harris, meanwhile, has 68,800,347 popular votes, a steep decline from Old Joe Biden’s 2020 total of 81,286,454. 

As Victoria Taft noted here, that raises a lot of uncomfortable questions about what exactly happened in 2020. Yet apparently oblivious to self-incrimination, even some leftists are asking what is going on — and, of course, blaming Trump.

That Trump would have gotten roughly the same number of votes in 2024 as he did in 2020 is perfectly reasonable. He is, thanks to the left’s relentless campaign of defamation, a highly controversial figure, and while the 2024 campaign certainly changed some people’s minds about him, it is no surprise that his base of support remained roughly the same size that it was the last time around. 

But what about that massive drop-off between Old Joe, the most popular president in American history according to his vote total, and Kamala? Not only did eleven million voters not show up for Harris as they did for Biden, but they didn’t go anywhere. Not only did Kamala not get those votes, but there is no comparable increase in anyone else’s vote total. 

Pam Keith, a far-left Democrat who ran a failed campaign for Congress from Florida in 2020, is one leftist who thinks all this is highly suspicious. On X, she reposted a conspiracy-minded leftist’s case for assuming that the eleven million missing votes are not, as is painfully obvious, proof that the 2020 election was indeed stolen, but of 2024 Trump ballot box chicanery: “What mystifies, enrages and terrifies me: His mention of not needing votes. His little secret w\ Mike Johnson. His low attended gibberish rallies. Her Monstrous crowds. Lines for hours to vote. Record turnout. And now we are just going to ‘pffft’ not count 20m votes. WTF!”

In stating that Trump mentioned “not needing votes,” the X user was referring to a conspiracy theory that Rachel Maddow pushed hard on MSNBC. Maddow claimed that Trump’s boasts about not needing votes—which was an obvious claim to having substantial enough support to win the election—were evidence that he planned to take power by other means, maybe, say, another “insurrection.” Now, her hysteria over Trump’s boasts has become part of the case for claiming that Bad Orange Man made all those Democrat votes disappear.

Keep reading

Colorado Springs Voters Approve Two Contradictory Marijuana Ballot Measures To Both Allow And Ban Recreational Sales

Colorado Springs voters approved two competing ballot measures this week, one that would ban retail marijuana in the city and another that would allow existing medical marijuana stores to also sell recreationally.

As of 6 p.m. on Wednesday night, about 53 percent of voters approved Ballot Issue 2D, a city charter amendment referred by City Council that would prohibit sales within city limits. About the same share of voters also approved Ballot Question 300, an initiated ordinance which would allow the approximately 90 medical marijuana stores in the city to apply for a recreational license.

Mayor Yemi Mobolade said the result creates “a really interesting legal dilemma for us,” according to Westword.

“Although the election is not final until the results are certified, it appears as though both Ballot Question 2D and Ballot Question 300 will have been approved by the voters. If this is the case, Ballot Question 300 must be read, interpreted, and implemented in a manner to be consistent and harmonious with Ballot Question 2D,” city spokesperson Max D’Onofrio wrote in an email.

The city charter takes precedence over ordinances, so provisions of Ballot Question 300 that conflict with Ballot Issue 2D cannot be implemented, which appears to mean recreational marijuana sales would continue to be outlawed. D’Onofrio said the city is currently reviewing the ballot language. City Council next meets on November 12.

At the same time, backers of Ballot Issue 2D are optimistic.

“When all the votes are counted and the will of voters is given effect, responsible regulation will be law and the city council’s cynical ploy will be defeated,” Citizens for Responsible Marijuana Regulation said in a statement. “We know that those in municipal government will defer to the clearly expressed intent of voters to authorize recreational marijuana, and we look forward to working with city leaders over the coming months to create a responsible regulatory framework.”

Keep reading

Arizona Rejects Restrictions on Governor’s Emergency Powers

Arizonans voted against Proposition 135, a ballot measure that would have enshrined an “Emergency Declarations Amendment” to the constitution limiting the ability of their governor to extend emergency declarations among others. 56.8 percent of Arizona voters went against the proposition, with 68 percent of the vote counted as of press time.

Two years ago, Governor Doug Ducey signed a similar bill limiting the duration of a state of emergency to 30-day increments, which are eligible for extensions up to 120 days without the legislature’s approval. Proposition 135 would have set a hard cap of 30 days for states of emergency and prohibited the governor from extending them without approval from state lawmakers. Absent a decision from the state legislature, the declared state of emergency would automatically end after the allotted 30 days.

Under the ballot measure, certain types of emergencies—like a state of war, fire, and floods—would not be subject to the 30-day limit. Additionally, the legislature would have had the authority to alter or limit the governor’s powers when lawmakers extend an emergency declaration.

Apart from the amendment’s effects on emergency declarations, it also required the governor to call a special session upon the petition of “at least one-third of each house of the legislature,” according to the ballot’s language. Under current law, two-thirds of lawmakers in both chambers must vote in favor of a special session to force the governor to call one. 

Republican lawmakers holding majorities in both chambers voted in 2023 for the amendment to be included on the 2024 ballot; no Democrats voted to include the ballot measure. The bill’s sponsor, state representative Joseph Chaplik (R–Scottsdale), cited the 700-day plus COVID-19 emergency order as a key reason for his support of the measure, according to The Arizona Republic. Rep. Chaplik told The Arizona Republic that the proposition would have allowed special sessions to occur immediately following a governor’s “abuses [of] their emergency power.”

Opponents of Proposition 135 cited concerns over the state’s ability to respond to emergencies. Requiring legislative approval might have slowed down the resources that states of emergency are meant to help allocate. The allocation of state resources, temporary suspension of regulations, enhanced information gathering, and speedy authorization of stricter public safety measures are all reasons states of emergency are declared.  

Keep reading