Nationalization of Federal Elections

Nationalization of Federal Elections

Thomas Allen

Trump and many of his supporters advocate for the nationalization of federal elections. They want to require voters to prove citizenship with governmentally approved identification.  As support for their position, they cite Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, which reads, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” Using this clause, they argue that the federal government can establish the qualifications of voters in federal elections. To prevent confusion, most States will adopt the federal standards for State elections.

However, does the Constitution authorize the federal government to set qualifications for voters even in federal elections? The delegation only allows Congress to set the time, places, and manner of holding federal elections. Congress has set the time, and most States elect their State and county officials on that date. It can identify the locations of federal elections. Finally, it can describe the manner of election. That is, Congress can require or prohibit the use of paper ballots, machine-voting, etc., for federal elections. However, this clause does not authorize Congress to establish qualifications for voters.

If Congress could establish voter qualifications, there would have been no need for the Fifteenth Amendment (extended voting to Black males), the Nineteenth Amendment (gave women the vote), the Twenty-fourth Amendment (removed the requirement to pay taxes), and the Twenty-sixth Amendment (lowered the voting age to 18). Instead of going through the arduous process of amending the Constitution, Congress could have merely changed voter qualifications by statute. (Since presidents keep legislating through executive orders, the president could set the qualifications for voters with an executive order.)

Historically, the duty for setting voter qualifications rested with the States. If not, the Constitution would not have needed to be amended to establish national standards for voting qualifications.

The proponents of nationalizing federal elections argue that nationalization is necessary to prevent fraud. It is not. (In “Trump Calls to ‘Nationalize’ Elections. The Constitutional Solution Is Local,” February 5, 2026, Veronika Kyrylenko identifies many steps that States and local governments can take to reduce corrupt and fraudulent elections. She also discusses some major flaws in the proposed legislation; one is that it will become part of the federal government’s digital surveillance of Americans. [https://thenewamerican.com/us/trump-calls-to-nationalize-elections-the-constitutional-solution-is-local/?mc_cid=abab48bd20]) They claim that presenting some kind of federally approved identification to vote is necessary to prevent or at least reduce fraud, which is true. However, should the federal government undertake such action? If Trump succeeds in nationalizing federal elections, he will set a dangerous precedent that the Democrats will use to their advantage when they regain control of the federal government. They can amend the law to prohibit voter ID. Moreover, they can require that all federal elections be held by mail-in ballots and that only Democrats can count the ballots. If federal elections are nationalized, all federal elections can become as corrupt and fraudulent as the 2020 presidential election in Fulton County, Georgia. 

(Personally, I believe that requiring voter identification would reduce corrupt and fraudulent elections. However, the States should impose the requirement rather than the federal government. The more centralized voting becomes, the easier it is to corrupt.)

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Is Ann Coulter Credible?

Is Ann Coulter Credible?
Thomas Allen

    In her column “A Nation Rejoices! A Humiliating Defeat for Trump,” Ann Coulter explains why the Republican Doug Mastriano lost the gubernatorial election in Pennsylvania. With her explanation, she implies that she has no credibility.
    In “A Credibility Test,” a four-part test is given to determine if a person has credibility on political issues. The four questions are:
    (1)    Does the person believe or act as though he believes the official story of the Kennedy assassination?
    (2)    Does the person believe or act as though he believes the official governmental conspiracy theory of 9-11?
    (3)    Does the person believe or act as though he believes that the Democrats did not steal the 2020 presidential election but won it fairly?
    (4)    Does the person believe or act as though he believes that White replacement is a hoax?
If a person answers “yes” to any of these questions, his credibility is questionable. If he answers “yes” to two or three, he has no credibility. If he answers “yes” to all four, he is ignorant beyond repair and is irredeemably stupid.
    Among the reasons that Coulter gives for Mastriano’s defeat were that he spoke at a QAnon rally where the official stories of 9-11 and the Kennedy assassination were questioned. Thus, she implies that she accepts the official stories — at least, she does not reject them.
    Also, she condemns Mastriano for claiming that the Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election. By that, she implies that the Democrats did not steal the 2020 presidential election.
    Coulter does not discuss White replacement in this article. However, in “They’re Replacing You, Black America” (June 2, 2022), she implies that White replacement is a hoax.
    As shown above, Coulter answers all four questions with “yes.” Therefore, not only does she have no credibility, she is ignorant beyond repair and is irredeemably stupid.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

January 6

January 6

Thomas Allen

The so-called January 6 insurrectionists stormed the Capitol Building because they knew that the Democrats had stolen the 2020 presidential election and almost no Republican was objecting to the theft. Consequently, Nancy Pelosi established a committee to prove that President Trump organized, incited, and supported this so-call insurrection. Following are some observations on the 2020 presidential election and the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, Capitol Hill insurrection.

– If the Democrats did not steal the 2020 presidential election, then that means that 81 million Americans hate America so much that they voted for its destruction by electing the great destroyer, who has done an excellent job of destroying America.

– I do not understand why many of the 81 million people who voted for Biden disapprove of him. He promised to implement policies to destroy America. Eighty-one million people voted for him to carry out his promises. So far, he has been highly effective in fulfilling his promises. Yet, many people who voted for him to do what he promised to do and is doing disapprove of him. The only thing that I can figure out is that he is not destroying America fast enough to satisfy them. Perhaps, if he can provoke Russia into a nuclear war, which he is working eagerly to do, they will be satisfied.

– As braindead as Biden is, he still has more functioning brain cells than most Democrats and many Republicans. He knows that he is not the real president and admits it. Most Democrats and many Republicans refuse to admit that Biden is not the real president.

– If Trump were planning a coup, why did he authorize 20,000 national guard troops to protect the Capitol? Certainly, they would have thwarted his coup. Why did the Democratic mayor of Washington fail to order the deployment of these troops? Surely, if the Democrats suspected that Trump was planning a coup, they would have ordered the deployment of troops that Trump had authorized. Did the Democrats want to blame Trump for attempting a coup, which he never attempted or planned to attempt? Since the Democrats refused Trump’s offer of troops to protect the Capitol, they knew that he was not planning a coup. They wanted to give the appearance of a coup to use as propaganda against Trump and if possible to imprison him. However, if they knew of a planned coup and rejected the offer of troops, then they are accomplices in the coup.

– Democrats are notorious for accusing others of doing what they (the Democrats) are guilty of doing. The Democrats stole the election from Trump. Thus, to deflect attention from their theft, they accuse Trump of trying to steal the election from Biden.

– If our Representatives and Senators thought that a disorganized unarmed mob was trying to overthrow the federal government, why did they flee? Since they heavily outgunned the insurrectionists, why did they not stand and fight to save the government?  Were they cowards? Did they believe that the federal government was not worth defending? Or, did they know that this was no instruction and, therefore, lied about it being one? At least one of these three choices has to be true. If they are cowards, they should not be in Congress. If they believe that the government is not worth defending, they should not be in Congress. If they have lied, they should not be in Congress. Consequently, none of these Representatives or Senators should be in Congress.

– If anyone wants to see a Soviet show trial kangaroo court in action, he can watch the January 6 hearings. The conclusion of the committee holding the hearings was determined before the hearings started. Like the Kennedy assassination commission and the 9-11 commission, the purpose of these January 6 committee hearings is to conceal the truth and to keep the truth from being revealed.

– The House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, incident reveals America’s two-standard, two-tier justice system, which is no justice system at all. On January 6, 2021, guards at the Capitol Building opened the doors and let the people inside. Some vandalized and should be punished. Yet, many of those who entered the Capitol Building who did no damage and even people who did not enter have been arrested. They have been imprisoned without due process. Many are held in solitary confinement, and some have not even been charged with a crime. Most are denied bail. Some have spent more time in jail than the length of their sentence if found guilty, and for many, their punishment far exceeds their crime. Moreover, many of those arrested committed no crime on January 6.

On the other hand, BLM and Antifa rioted, burned buildings, destroyed property, and injured numerous people. However, almost none of these rioters were arrested. Most of the few who were arrested had their charges dropped or were released with no charges. Almost none were fined or served a prison sentence. Yet, the BLM and Antifa rioters did much more damage and were a much greater threat to the country than the so-called insurrectionists on January 6.

– One purpose of the  House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, incident is to provide cover for a stolen election. It is an attempt to convince people that the Democrats did not steal the 2020 presidential election by persuading people that Trump was the one trying to steal the election. Another purpose is to provide anti-Trumpers propaganda for the upcoming 2022 and 2024 elections. Also, the Democrats and other anti-Trumpers are using the January 6 investigation to justify lynching Trump. (If they could literally lynch Trump, they would. They know that they can get away with it because the US Department of [In]justices would do nothing but protect them from local law enforcement. They need only do the lynching in a Blue State.)

– Nancy Pelosi’s closing remarks to the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, Capitol Hill insurrection:

This Committee has proven beyond any doubt what it set out to prove. We have shown that Donald Trump while dressed in a military battle uniform led a heavily armed million-man army to the Capitol Building with the intent to overthrow the government. If it were not for the courageous Democratic members of the House and Senate, who, although unarmed and standing alone, fearlessly fought Trump’s army for hours in hand-to-hand combat and finally drove Trump and his army away from the Capitol Building, the government would have fallen, and Trump would be a dictator. These brave Democrats saved democracy. We have proven this with bias, prejudicial, and at times fabricated testimony while suppressing all testimony that refutes the guilt of Trump and the goals of this inquiry.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

A Credibility Test

A Credibility Test

Thomas Allen

The following is a test to decide if a person is credible and has a rudimentary knowledge of recent American political history. It is especially useful for politicians and political commentators. (This article is an expansion of the credibility test given in “More Political Thoughts.”)

Does the person believe or act as though he believes:

1. The official story of the Kennedy assassination. (Along with the many other flaws and anomalies of the official story, the person believes that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone assassin who killed President Kennedy by firing three shots from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. He believes that Oswald could fire three shots in six seconds and hit two men 200 feet away with a cheap, low-quality, defective rifle. Further, he believes that a single high-powered rifle bullet penetrated both Kennedy and Governor Connally causing seven wounds, shattering a rib and wrist bone, and emerging in almost pristine condition. Also, he must believe that all the eyewitnesses whose accounts contradict the official story deliberately lied. Moreover, he believes that the statements in the Warren Report that have subsequently been shown to be inaccurate or untrue are still true and accurate. On the other hand, he must ignore (1) evidence that more than three shots were fired, (2) the overwhelming evidence that shots were fired from the Grassy Knoll, (3) evidence of more than one rifle being used and more than one shooter, (4) the lack of evidence that places Oswald on the sixth floor of the Depository at the time of the shooting and the evidence that he was not on the sixth floor at that time, (5) no evidence that Oswald ever had possession of the rifle used in the assassination (moreover, the scope on the rifle was adjusted for a left-handed shooter; Oswald was right-handed), (6) a tree branch prevented a clear line of sight from the window of the sixth floor of the Depository, (7) Oswald never achieving marksmanship standard when he was in the Marines, (8) the paraffin test made on Oswald on the day of the assassination suggesting that he had not fired a rifle that day, (9) evidence that the FBI put Oswald’s finger prints on the murder weapon after he died, (10) the scientific evidence that different bullets struck Kennedy and Connally, (11) Connally’s claim that different bullets hit him and Kennedy, (12) the poor quality superficial autopsy, (13) the Dallas doctors claiming that Kennedy had a large hole in the right rear of his head while the Bethesda doctors claimed that the wound stretched from the upper side of the rear to the right front, (14) Kennedy’s body being wrapped in a white sheet and placed in an expensive bronze casket in Dallas for transport to Bethesda and arriving at Bethesda in a black zipper body bag inside a cheap military shipping casket, (15) changing the location of the entry wound between Kennedy’s shoulder blade that exited through his throat, which required the bullet to travel in an upward direction, by raising the entry wound to fit the official story, (16) the throat wound being smaller than the back wound, which suggests that the bullet entered the throat and exited the back. (17) evidence that three bullets hit Kennedy instead of two, and (18) the Commission not being allowed to see the autopsy photographs and X-rays. Moreover, he must ignore the Commission, FBI, and other federal agencies suppressing evidence that conflicted with the official story, changing evidence to support the official story, and harassing and intimidating witnesses whose testimony conflicted with the official story. Also, he must disagree with members of the Warren Commission who later questioned the conclusions of the Warren Report. Above all, he must believe that the Kennedy assassination involved no conspiracy.

2. The official governmental conspiracy theory of 9-11. (A gang of Muslims, who could hardly fly trainer aircraft, hijacked four passenger airplanes. They flew two into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, which caused the two buildings to collapse at near free-fall speed into their footprints. Somehow, they also caused Building 7 to collapse at near free-fall speed into its footprint. Moreover, they made an impossible turning maneuver to fly an airplane into the Pentagon so that they could avoid hitting the side of the building, which required no turn, where Rumsfeld’s office was. Instead, they made an impossible turn and hit the side of the building where an audit of the Department of Defense’s expenditures was occurring. Remarkably, they managed to do this by causing a hole in the building much smaller than their hijacked airplane and causing no damage to the adjacent lawn. If such miracles were not enough, they managed to create a fire hot enough to vaporize aluminum, greater than 4400̊F, yet cool enough not to incinerate human bodies, less than 1400̊F. Further, the hijackers caused several simulations of hijacked aircraft to occur while they carried out their dastardly deed. Moreover, they changed the standard operating procedures for intercepting hijacked airplanes. Additionally, the hijackers sent intercepting jets from airfields far enough away and at slow enough speeds so that they could not intercept the hijacked aircraft before they crashed into the buildings. Moreover, the United States have the most incompetent intelligence agencies that have ever existed throughout history [If this notion is rejected, then the other two choices are {1} high-ranking governmental officials knew that the attack was going to happen and let it happen or {2} high-ranking governmental officials collaborated in the attack.])

3. That the Democrats did not steal the 2020 presidential election but won it fairly. (Thus, the person believes that 81 million people hate America so much that they voted for its destruction by putting the great destroyer in office, who has done an excellent job in destroying the country.)

4. That White replacement is a hoax. (No program exists to replace Whites [Aryans, Homo albus] in Europe, the United States, and the White Anglophone countries with people of color: Negro [H. niger], Melanochroi [H. brunus], Turanian [H. luridus], Indo-Australian [H. australis], and  Khoisan [H. khoisanii]. [Being racial nihilists, most conservatives and libertarians, or albusphobes, most liberals and progressives, they refuse to acknowledge the facts that prove that White replacement is true.])

If a person answers “yes” to any of these statements, his credibility is questionable. If he answers “yes” to two or three, he has no credibility. If he answers “yes” to all four, he is ignorant beyond repair and is irredeemably stupid.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.