By Nancy Thorner -
Following are highlights from questions fielded by scientist Jay Lehr and Tom Harris to Chicago lawyer Joseph A. Morris about the "For the People Act", HR 1, during their one-hour radio program, The Other Side of the Story, on American Out Loud Talk Radio, live-streamed on Sunday, May 30, 202l.
As Joe Morris said about election law reforms: "Whenever you hear from anyone who wants to sell a pack of election law reforms, get your guard up, because 99 times out of 100 it will favor the party in power."
“There is massive election fraud in Chicago, and it's a constantly evolving thing."
You will wish to read all the responses of Joe Morris to question posed to him, because they are outstanding and speak to an unbelievable wealth of knowledge.
Question 1: About the idea of 16-year-old students voting under direction of their teachers who many times support Democrats?
Morris: “This is the federal government reaching into classrooms of local schools, clearly aimed at public secondary schools, and saying we're turning teachers into voter registrars. Although public schools will be able to register voters at the age of l6 under HR 1, students may not be able to vote until 18.”
“It doesn't take a real genius to realize that this is a tremendous gift to public school teacher unions from coast to coast. Teacher unions are an important voter and financial constituency. Opportunities certainly exist for teachers to propagandize students.”
Question 2: About ballot harvesting?
Morris: “There is a direct correlation between ballot harvesting and the question of privacy.
For 150 years in America we have recognized that a secret ballot is a sacred thing. Voting should be conducted in such a way that a voter goes into a polling place, or in some way casts his or her ballot, so that nobody else on Earth knows how that ballot was cast. It's between you and God and your conscience how you voted.
That system of secrecy of the ballot became known to the world in the 19th century as the Australian Ballot. We have the Australian Ballot system. This is where voter ID and voter harvesting all come into play. Both are aimed at preserving the secrecy of your ballot. Secrecy of the ballot is something that professional politicians hate.”
“The great danger of ballot harvesting is that it puts somebody between the person voting and casting a ballot. We are told not to worry yourself about casting you own ballot, taking it to your polling place, or taking it downtown to election headquarters. I'll be by your house at such and such a time and will take it downtown for you.”
“How do we know that when a ballot comes in to be counted it is yours and not one that someone else has stuck in after monkeying with it to deny you the right to vote secretly or not at all?”
Question 3: About how can a Voter ID prejudice against people of color?
This question was asked of Joe Morris by Jay Lehr, but Tom Harris, as a citizen of Canada, wondered how this could be so.
Joe Morris offered this explanation:
“The usual explanation that Democrats give are typically very racist and reduced to one or another version of the theme that people of color are too stupid, or too lazy, or too unmotivated to be able to go out and get an ID, as if there is something frightful about the process. Hispanics are afraid to go out to government offices to get ID's because it exposes them to being harassed by immigration authorities.
In the first place, the only people who should be casting votes in America are citizens. That's the nature of democracies. We govern ourselves. We don't have other people governing us. It is citizens governing each other. So, if you're a citizen, you probably have nothing to worry about from immigration authorities.
And Is it too obnoxious to expect people of color to get a proper government ID? It's really a racist argument to ask people to do something that they are perfectly capable of doing and in fact they do do. Whether we're driving cars or going into office buildings or going into hospitals to get medical care, we need to show that we are who we say we are.
We don't have a national ID system, but we have lots and lots of other ID systems that people will accept ranging from driver licenses, to other state ID's, and passport, etc. We accept them because they are easy to get and they make sure that a benefit is imposed, or a burden, only to that person who should be subject to that benefit or burden.” End of quote
Question 4: About asking a voter about citizenship?
Said Jay Lehr, “My reading of HR 1 says it's illegal to ask a voter if they are a citizen? Is that correct, Joe?”
Morris: “It is correct and it's obnoxious because it is citizenship that confers upon a person the right to vote. People who are not citizens have lots and lots of rights. Our Constitution protects everyone in the U.S. with equal protection under the law as noted in the 14th Amendment of our Constitution. Non-citizens, however, are subject to burdens such as taxation and obeying the law.
One thing, above all others that citizenship confers upon a citizen, is that they have the right to be a decision maker. Citizenship is admission to the Club that lets you vote on who is going to hold office. That's the nature of our Democracy, if we are going to govern ourselves, we must know who we are. The definition of "weness" is citizenship. A fundamental question is are you a citizen? What HR 1 is trying to do is to undermine the connection between citizenship and voting.” End of quote.
Question 5: About the unconstitutionality of HR 1?
To which Jay inquired, “Isn't HR 1 unconstitutional? I would think that it could go to the Supreme Court to be thrown out as unconstitutional, although I have less and less confidence in the Supreme Court. What is your opinion about the bill being unconstitutional?”
Morris: “I'm sorry, but now you are putting me in a tremendous bind, because I am not only a citizen and a political advocate, but I am also a lawyer. HR 1, I guarantee you, is going to guarantee lots of business for lawyers for the next couple of years. There are so many things in HR 1 that cry out to be litigated. The country will be papered coast to coast with lawsuits. There are lots of hidden time bombs and hidden things in HR 1 that are obnoxious.”
“Now if we have a fight here in IL where I am, over the right way to conduct an election, I can't file in Chicago, but I must go to my Chicago election authority in Washington, D.C. For baked into HR 1, the bill confers upon the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia national jurisdiction over ALL election disputes in the country. This will create a tremendous amount of work for the D.C. Bar, but not so much for election lawyers around the country.”
Jay Lehr then inquired of Morris about the 20 Attorney Generals who have gathered together and made some complaints about HR 1. “Is that going to have any standing?”
Morris: “I think it will, when you have coming together 20 State Attorney Generals representing the chief law maker in each state.” One point of contention: “There will be tremendous new costs to taxpayers. It's much like a federal mandate. Things will be demanded of the states, but the states will have to pay for them should HR 1 pass Congress and Biden signs it.”
“Fortunately, I think it's still a horse race. There are several Democrat senators who are rather sensible and honorable people who realize the nature of the game. This is a game being conducted for the benefit of the political class and not for the benefit of the people.”
Question 6: About the problem of confidence in elections?
As a Canadian, Tom Harris inquired of Joe Morris how the American people have been taking it on the chin for the last couple of elections.
Morris: “We have a huge problem in this country. The American people don't have confidence in getting honest and fair elections.”
“Going back to 2016 with the allegations about Russia collusion, foreign governments have always tried to mess with our elections and pit Americans against Americans. They did it in 2016, and they did it in 2012, and they did it in 2008, and they did it in 2004. They have been trying to do so for as long as I've been alive. They were doing it back in the Nazi era before WWII.
In 2016 it was taken to a new level, not only the allegation that Russia was trying to interfere, but that one of the candidates was in cahoots with Russia, etc. And it was all a lie, based on fabricated information that was generated for pay by people in the pay of the Clinton campaign. It was then propagated by corrupt politicians who ran with it and a complicit media. It almost made this nation look like a Banana Republic. It poisoned the atmosphere of the first year of the Trump administration.
We cannot have a democracy if people don't have the confidence that their vote counts. I do firmly believe that there are those, mostly on the Left, who are consciously trying to undermine democracy.” End of quote.
Understanding progressives
Morris explains: “Progressives believe in government by experts; they don't believe in government by the people. People should not be making decisions for themselves. They should instead allow experts to make decisions for them, a process that begins with government.”
“Put In simpler terms: Progressives are people who think they are experts, thinking they can run your life far better than you can your own life.”
“This is not new. It goes back to 2008 and Barack Obama's condemnation of the U.S. Constitution for dwelling too much on negative rights instead of on positive rights. He wants to rewrite the Constitution to lard it with positive rights, things you get from government.”
Woodrow Wilson as granddaddy of progressive, left-wing movement
Morris gave a mini history lesson, continuing: “But it goes way back beyond Barack Obama to a hundred years before to President Woodrow Wilson, the granddaddy of the progressives. The racist, segregationist Wilson, founder of the American progressive, left-wing movement in America — the most penetrating left-wing movement in American history — despised the Constitution. Wilson wrote about it as an academic progressive as a professor of political science, as president of Princeton University, as governor of New Jersey, and as president of the U.S. President Wilson railed against the U.S. Constitution as out molded and outdated because it had too many darn checks and balances. What was needed was a system that allowed the experts chosen by the president, and wise people, to tell other people how to live their lives.
The progressive movement that was set in motion by Woodrow Wilson back in the early 20th century continues its long-arm reach through history to undermine faith in the American Constitutional.
The dirty little secret of progressives is that they must always have enemies according to whatever the needs are at any moment in its effort to grasp power. Back in Woodrow Wilson's era, the enemy of the progressive movement were black people and people of color, because they were easy to trample on in building majority support. Other progressive experiments included prohibition, the movement that birthed Planned Parenthood, and eugenics that forbid some people from marrying or having children whether it was across racial lines or ethnic lines, etc.
A progressive impulse is to take control of people's lives — we know better than other people do.
Thomas Jefferson spoke of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Every individual got to define for himself what happiness is. That doesn't cut it for progressives. They have no use for that vision of the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution. They want to invest power across the board in experts and the people who know the right thing to do at any moment. That must begin with controlling elections, then it goes on to controlling everything else.” End of quote
Question 7: About Climate Change and control
“Tom and I (Jay Lehr) talk a lot about Climate Change, Global Warming. It's all about power, a mechanism in which they feel they can control our lives like controlling all the energy we use and all Carbon Dioxide emissions. It has nothing to do with science, and it has nothing to do with climate. It's all about power.”
Morris: “If you listen, they will admit it. They will say to you we need to oppose the following restrictions and requirements. Now if we impose those restrictions and requirements, they then tell us that they won't make a difference in the climate. The needle won't move by a hair, so why do it if it's not going to change anything on the ground or in the atmosphere to affect the climate?”
The answer is: “It's not the outcome of the climate that we care about, it's the outcome of power that we care about. The name of the game is a fig leaf, smoke and mirrors to justify a seizure of power, not to address climate change.”
Jay and Tom have an article posted at America Out Loud relating HR 1 to Climate Change, H.R.1 Election Integrity Act is a Wolf in Wolf’s Clothing.
Part 1 was posted at Illinois Review on Wednesday, June 9, 2021:
