On September 19th, 2022 California Democratic Representative Zoe Lofgren1 introduced H.R. 8873 the Presidential Election Reform Act2. Just two days later on September 21st, 2022, H.R. 8873 passed the House of Representatives with 219 of the total Representatives in favor of the legislation and 209 Representatives against it.
Only one Republican Representative, Liz Cheney, voted in favor of the bill, with the remaining Republicans voting against it. Two Republicans and two Democrats did not participate in the vote. Next, H.R. 8873 will move into the Senate, where it will be voted on becoming an official law3.
The bill seeks to amend Title 3 of United States Code, to “reform the process for the counting of electoral votes,” and for “other purposes.” Legislation often contains terms like “other purposes,” which allow perpetual reinterpretation as needed to work against a two-party system, in further preparation for a one-party platform. The main goal of this legislation is to enable conditional deference in timely election results based upon external surrounding factors.
Section 4SEC. 4. PERMITTING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN EVENT OF CATASTROPHIC EVENT POTENTIALLY AFFECTING OUTCOME.Section 4 permits an extension of time for Presidential Elections in the event of a “catastrophic event” that could potentially affect the outcome. This ambiguously presented position allows a plethora of possibilities including false flags presented as significant threats to both American liberty and the liberal voter’s eternal strive for an illusive democracy. Is voting conducive to establishing a pact of trust between the people and the state?In order to be defined as an “extended voting period,” allowing an extension to producing election results, the criteria for a decision must produce “clear and convincing evidence” that these requirements are met.‘‘(3) CRITERIA FOR DECISION.—The court shall require the time for voting in the election to be extended under this section only if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the criteria of subsection are met.‘‘(4) SCOPE OF EXTENDED VOTING PERIOD.— (A) PERIOD OF EXTENSION.—If the court finds that the criteria of subsection (a) are met, the court shall, except as provided in subparagraph (C), order an extended voting period that shall be for the shortest duration necessary in light of the catastrophic event justifying the extension, so long as such extended voting period concludes not later than 5 days after the day fixed by section 1 of this title.”
What Defines a “Catastrophic Event?”As defined in H.R. 8873, the term “Catastrophic Event” can be used to describe natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and blackouts. In order to be classified as a catastrophe, the event must either prevent “a substantial portion of” residents of a particular state from voting. In addition, catastrophes can be declared as a result of “a substantial number” of voters’ ballots being destroyed or unreadable as a result of the event. This means should an election require government intervention, catastrophes can be easily manifested by third-party entities in the advocation of ensuring that the deep state of control remains in power.The term “terrorist threat” is defined as “acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws” and seeks to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.” This means any act of violence during an election can be subject to fall into this category, stalling or eliminating election results. While “assassinations” and “kidnapping” remain distinct, the terms “mass destruction,” “intimidation,” “coercion,” and “influence” are ambiguously defined terms that can be interpreted by the government as needed.By H.R. 8873, instances of “major natural disaster” can be reduced to “snowstorms,” “flooding,” and “fires,” as long as they hold some form of historical significance. For dramatic effect, the bill additionally cites “earthquakes,” “tsunamis,” “tidal waves,” and “volcanic eruptions” which cause “great damage or loss of life” as further exceptions.Under these predesignated circumstances, how likely are political operatives to produce a false flag in order to halt the results of an “uncontrolled” election? Once the public adopts these laws and acclimates to the expectation that our national elections can be stopped at will by the executive branch, it will become that much more difficult for the people to discern government tampering with election results. In order to prove the stalling of election results is justified, there must be sufficient evidence that a catastrophic event has occurred or the American population faces unprecedented danger. This methodology also allows domestic terrorists and other extremist groups to participate in manifesting crises at the whim of personal opinion. By placing the legitimacy of elections conditional on violence and coercion, the government’s assurance of intervention becomes a factor of intimidation aiming to sway voters’ ability to choose between the compromised candidate, or enduring a national crisis. 24 ‘‘(1) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term25 “‘catastrophic event’ means a major natural disaster, an act of terrorism, or a widespread power outage, so long as such event is on a scale sufficient to prevent a substantial portion of a State’s electorate from casting a ballot on the day fixed by section of this title, or such event causes a substantial number of ballots already cast in a State to be destroyed or rendered unreadable.”‘‘(A) the term ‘act of terrorism’ means an activity that involves acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, and that appear to be intended—(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;”‘‘(B) the term ‘major natural disaster’means any natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, historically significant wide- spread snowstorm, historically significant widespread flooding, historically significant destructive fire, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, or volcanic eruption that causes great damage or loss of life).”
H.R. 8873’s Meaning for AmericaH.R. 8873 suggests that since Article II of the U.S. Constitution and the Twelfth Amendment “govern how our Republic selects the president and vice president of the United States,” that, as a result of January 6th 2021, “The Electoral Count Act of 1887 should be amended to prevent other future unlawful efforts to overturn Presidential elections and to ensure future peaceful transfers of Presidential power.” To understand the meaning of this suggestion, here is a breakdown of the proposal:
The Twelfth Amendment was passed by Congress on December 9, 1803, and ratified on June 15, 1804. The Amendment reformed the Electoral College described in Constitution’s Article II, section 14. The 12th Amendment was created to require a joint session in Congress to count votes. If no president or Vice President are selected from an electoral majority, congress will determine who is elected through a vote. The House of Representatives are responsible for voting on the President, and the Senate is responsible for choosing the Vice President. Conversely, Article I, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states that “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided5.” In addition, the Twelfth Amendment also designates that in the absence of a U.S. President, the Vice President will default to fill the position.
The Electoral Count Act of 1887
1887 – The Electoral Count Act of 1887 states that “Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors6…at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day.” The Act also states that every objection to an electoral vote must be made in writing and signed by at least one Senator and one member of the House of Representatives. If the objection is not both in writing and signed, it will be dismissed.
The Impact of January 6th
H.R. 8873 refers to the violent rebellion which occurred on January 6th, 2021 as both,
- ‘‘the single most deadly attack on the Capitol by domestic forces in the history of the United States.’’
- “the most significant assault on the Capitol since the War of 1812.”
Could this comparison be true? Was January 6th, 2021 truly the single most significant attack on our Capitol by domestic forces in the history of our nation?
In actuality, the actions which took place among political activists on January 6th, 2021 gave an opportunity for appointed political operatives within the federal government to magnify the eligibility for persecution. Now, the government can attempt to criminalize any form of national dissent, along with the views of voters who align with the narrative of the Republican party. This deceptive strategy aids in the assurance of political determinism, presenting an entire political party in a sinister light. Although it may sound desirable to condemn all forms of political dissent to avoid another attack on the Capitol, it narrows the public political field of societal acceptance to the limitations of one-party. This does not advocate the actions to those who trespassed onto the capitol on January 6th in hopes of changing the vote, nor the criminals in power who dictate policy from there. While Congress itself cannot be called an oligarchy, the maleficent forces within the federal government work against the people from all angles. However, evil is always less powerful than good, and having access to truthful information is key to the public visibility of both the path to individual sovereignty and the awareness of malicious intent. So decide for yourself. Was January 6th, 2021 in fact the “most significant assault on the Capitol since the War of 1812?”
January 6th Compared
To properly make this decision, it is important to know the history of the attacks which have occurred by domestic forces throughout the history of America. Besides “the war of 1812,” the bill fails to mention any of the egregious attacks which have taken place on the U.S. Capitol within the past century.
Here is a look at a few:
- 1915 – On July 2nd, Erich “Frank Holt” Muenter blew up bombs at the U.S. Capitol, destroying the reception rooms, located outside of the vice president’s office. Holt then traveled to the home of the son of J.P. Morgan with the intention to shoot and kill him. Upon arrival Holt managed to fire two shots into J.P. Morgan before being subdued by both Morgan and his butler, Physick7,8. Holt repsonded to his violent actions stating “Unusual times and circumstances call for unusual means.”
- 1954 – On March 1st, four Puerto Rican nationalists open fired on the House Floor in protest with handguns, carrying a Puerto Rican flag9,10. The attack injured five Congressmen. Members of the House along with the Capitol Police and House Pages subdued three of the four assailants. One terrorist escaped and was later arrested.
- 1983 – On November 7th, seven members of the female-led left-wing terrorist group M19, detonated bombs at the Capitol building11,12causing $250,000 of damage. The blast intended to alter government policy and influence legislators’ using fear to manipulate decisions. M19’s self-described “armed propaganda,” sought to invoke a communist revolution. Thankfully, the group was subdued, and the members were sentenced. Before being prosecuted, members admitted M19 was responsible for conducting seven other bombings throughout D.C. and New York City. Members also claimed to have affiliations with The Weather Underground13 far-left wing socialist-communist group which bombed the Department of State in 1975, a few blocks from the White House14.
- 1998 – On July 24th, Russell Eugene Weston Jr stormed the U.S. Capitol with a .38 caliber revolver, shooting and killing two Capitol Police Officers15: Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson. His mission was to prevent cannibalism, by gaining access to “the ruby satellite,” located in a safe in the Senate16. The satellite would prevent “the most deadly disease known to mankind,” from being unleashed upon the world.
On January 6th, 2021, protestors-turned-rioters invaded the U.S. capitol to intimidate lawmakers and take selfies. As a result of the fiasco, five were left dead, four being protestors. Two died of suicide after the attack.
Below is a breakdown of the seven lives lost as a result of the January 6th, 2021 Capitol Hill attack:
- D.C. Police Officer Jeffrey Smith – Death by Suicide
- Capitol Officer Howard Liebengood – Death by Suicide
- Officer Brian D. Sicknick – Acute Brainstem and Cerebellar Infarcts, Due to Acute Basilar Artery Thrombosis (Two Strokes at the Base of the Brain Stem Caused by an Artery Clot)
- Ashli Babbitt – Air Force 14-Year Veteran, Shot in the Head by Capitol Hill Police
- Kevin D. Greeson – Heart Attack
- Rosanne Boyland – Crushed by Rioters
- Benjamin Philips – Died of a Stroke
Media Response to January 6thPopular media outlets such as the New York Times compared the January 6th attack to the devastation of 9/11, which claimed 2977 lives in an inhumanely grotesque international terrorist attack,1718. ValueAct. Beyond the filter of its publisher A. G. Sulzberger19,20 The New York Times’ collectivist narrative is funded by activist investors21, 22 such as ValueAct23,24. Activist investors’ goal is to shape the narrative of the publication, using its funding to dictate and control the image that its company of interest portrays. ValueAct is a company that is based upon “consideration of relevant social, ethical and environmental issues…We apply this same approach to working with our portfolio companies.” This means the New York Times must consistently comply with their investors’ worldview and political opinions25. Before any finances will be dispersed ValueAct will “always consider what is in the best interest of the company and all stakeholders.” This means political correctness and ensuring peaceful submissive compliance presides over Truth. Although the facts may be distorted, A. G. Sulzberger claims that his newspaper, the New York Times, is “the most consumed news organization in the country26.”
We now live in a day where the safety of the population is greatly dependent on voter resistance. Often those who pass legislation in congress fail to read or fully interpret the full context of the bills, resulting in ambiguous terms being introduced into law. These vague allowances are later reinterpreted into a nefarious context, resulting in oppressive regulations and mandated ordinances. By the provisions granted to the executive branch through H.R. 8873, terrorist threats can now be coordinated to combat and disrupt the election of unapproved candidates. The threat not only comes from the government but also from the depraved totality of the populace encouraging political extremists to impede our right to engage in fair elections. If one party is unhappy with the results or direction of an election, catastrophic events can ensue, in hopes of regaining control. Should we, the people, be subject to synthetic conditional catastrophes based upon a one-party narrative?