House Democrats Officially Surrender to – Join? – the DSA
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) now control the Democratic Party.
One could never have imagined just twenty years ago that nearly every Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives would ever vote against a nonbinding resolution – neither a law or a substantive rule – merely stating an opinion that the House “condemns and denounces socialism,” and “recommits itself to upholding the Constitution of the United States”?
But, according to the Congress.gov website, on September 1, the House “Agreed to [H.Res.1490] by the Yeas and Nays: 220 – 192, 2 Present (Roll no. 289).”
Only eight House Democrats – none of them from Pennsylvania – joined every Republican to denounce socialism and uphold the American Constitution. Two Democrats voted “Present.”
Did Democrats object to the resolution’s reaffirmation and defense of America’s representative Democracy? Or to the Constitution?
The resolution’s first “Whereas” defined socialism as “a concentration of power that has, time and time again, collapsed into communist regimes, totalitarian rule, and repressive dictatorships […] famine and mass murders, and the killing of over 100,000,000 people worldwide…”
In its body, the resolution’s condemnation and denunciation of “socialism in all its forms” specifically mentioned the Democratic Socialists of America.
It listed DSA’s goals, among other anti-American, extra-constitutional objectives, of allowing noncitizens and incarcerated criminals to vote in American elections, abolishing the U.S. Senate, implementing ranked choice voting in all elections, and replacing the two-party system.
Also designed to reaffirm House members’ support for upholding the Constitution, the resolution reached this conclusion: “the DSA’s ideology and socialism, in any form, are incompatible with American values and the United States Constitution.”
House Democrats’ nearly unanimous “Nay” votes indicate that, although “DSA’s ideology and socialism, in any form” may be “incompatible with American values and the United States Constitution,” neither are incompatible with the Democratic Party’s political worldview and objectives.
There must be a perfectly logical explanation, right? What reason(s) or excuse(s) have House Democrats offered for their “Nay” votes?
California Representative Pete Aguilar gave the game away: “[W]hat Republicans are seeking to do here is to just add in another talking point where they can talk about the SAVE Act.”
House Democrats objected to a line in the resolution that encourages “enactment of the SAVE America Act to ensure election security, increase public confidence in America’s voting system, and close loopholes in order to prevent noncitizens from voting in elections.”
House Democrats could not bring themselves to vote for an anti-socialism resolution that merely mentions SAVE, even though it already passed the House in February by a 218-213 margin, with just one Democrat – none from Pennsylvania – voting “Aye.”
SAVE’s objectives are popular with 80 percent of Americans, including 73 percent of registered Democrats, but elected Democrats don’t care.
Congressional Democrats act as though they fear that, if the Senate passes the 80-percent-favored SAVE Act, and cheating opportunities dry up, they/their candidates might only realize 20 percent of November votes cast.
Then, on September 2, House Democrats overwhelmingly rejected sending a proposed constitutional amendment to the states for ratification that would permanently fix the size of the U.S. Supreme Court at nine justices. Constitutional amendments require a two-thirds House vote in favor to pass.
Democrats dislike the current composition of the Supreme Court, because the constitutional judgment of the majority sometimes frustrates the party’s often-extra-constitutional objectives, and so, upon regaining the majority, Democrats have pledged to expand and pack the Court with liberal justices.
Only one Democrat – again, not from Pennsylvania – joined Republicans in supporting the amendment.
Just two months before the November general election, two House votes have provided American voters with fresh evidence of the radicalism that has infected and now controls the D
Citing Democrats’ nominations and prior elections, including elected Democrats’ endorsements of DSA members (as Democrats), and Democrats’ support for programs such as “an open border and mass amnesty for illegal aliens; the abolition of police and prisons; war on fossil fuels; radical DEI mandates; free health care for all; wealth taxes on billionaires and even millionaires; deep defense cuts; and an end to military aid to Israel,” Victor Davis Hanson concludes:
“The socialists didn’t radicalize the Democrat Party; they simply inherited a party that had already radicalized itself.”
Today, all but eight House Democrats, including Pennsylvania’s, are at least DSA-aligned, or members.
It’s good to know for whom you’re voting…
