Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

International

Can Russian And Chinese Agents Legally Vote In DC?

Published

7 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By TERENCE P. JEFFREY

 

Suppose Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping made an agreement: All their personnel stationed in Washington, D.C., would vote for the same candidates running in Washington’s local elections.

How many votes would this hypothetical alliance deliver? Perhaps not many — but more than a few.

The New York Times reported last July that the number of Russians working at their D.C. embassy had dropped significantly.

“In recent years, as many as 1,200 Russian personnel worked in the embassy compound,” said the Times. “The State Department will not say how many remain — staffing levels here and at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow are now a sensitive topic — but in January 2022, Mr. [Anatoly] Antonov [the Russian ambassador] put the number at 184 diplomats and support staff members.”

The website of the Chinese Embassy in Washington does not appear to mention how many Chinese nationals are deployed there. But it does talk about the massive size of the embassy building. “It covers an area of 10,796 square meters with a floor area of 39,900 square meters,” it says.

So, how can the Chinese nationals who work there — for a communist government — get away with voting in an American election?

How can Russians, working at the direction of Putin, do the same?

The D.C. government enacted a law that allows it.

On Oct. 18, 2022, the D.C. Council voted 12 to 0 — with one member absent and not voting — to approve the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act. Despite this one-sided vote, Mayor Muriel Bowser did not support it.

“Mayor Bowser expressed opposition by withholding her signature on the Act — something she has done only a handful of times over the course of her tenure,” said a report on the act published by the House Oversight and Accountability Committee.

The Washington Post also opposed it — in an editorial published a day before the Council vote.

“Voting is a foundational right of citizenship,” said the Post. “That’s why we oppose a bill, poised to pass the D.C. Council this week, that would allow an estimated 50,000 noncitizen residents to cast ballots in local elections.”

The Post also pointed out that this bill would allow both illegal aliens and foreign nationals working at foreign embassies to vote in D.C. elections.

“The proposal has been expanded to give voting rights in local elections to all noncitizen adults, regardless of whether they are in the country legally, so long as they’ve resided in the District for 30 days,” said the Post.

“There’s nothing in the measure,” the Post said, “to prevent employees at embassies of governments that are openly hostile to the United States from casting ballots.”

The House committee report repeated these points.

“On November 21, 2022, the District government enacted the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act … which allows noncitizens, including illegal immigrants, to vote in D.C. local elections,” said the report. “The Act makes no exception for foreign diplomats or agents voting in the District. These individuals often have interests separate from, or opposed to, the interests of Americans. This D.C. Act dilutes the votes of American citizens and could have a ripple effect across other large U.S. cities.”

The D.C. Board of Elections has posted online instructions for how foreign nationals can vote in D.C. elections.

“Starting in 2024, qualified non-citizen District of Columbia residents may vote in local elections,” say the instructions.

“Specifically, under District of Columbia law, non-citizen residents may vote in District of Columbia elections held for the offices of Mayor, Attorney General, member(s) of the DC Council, member(s) of the State Board of Education, or Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner(s), or to vote on initiative, referendum, recall, or charter amendment measures that appear on District of Columbia ballots,” say the instructions.

“Non-citizens cannot vote for federal offices,” they warn.

In its editorial opposing the bill, The Washington Post had made a key point about this last provision.

“The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly prohibit what the D.C. bill seeks to do, but a law signed in 1996 by President Bill Clinton bans noncitizens from voting in federal contests,” said the Post. “The proposed law presents logistical nightmares that will require the Board of Elections to print separate ballots so that noncitizens don’t vote in federal races.”

Republican Rep. James Comer of Kentucky introduced a resolution in January 2023 to nullify this D.C. voting law. When it came up for a vote on Feb. 9, 2023, then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy spoke in support of it.

“Last year, Washington, D.C., passed a law that would give the vote to illegal immigrants,” McCarthy said on the House floor. “The law makes no exceptions for foreign diplomats or agents who have interests that are the opposite of ours. Under this bill, Russian diplomats would get a vote and Chinese diplomats could get a vote.

“The CCP is already infiltrating our culture, our farmland, and our skies,” said McCarthy, “but the D.C. council would let them infiltrate our ballot boxes.”

The resolution to nullify this D.C. law passed the House 260-162 — with 42 Democrats joining 218 Republicans.

But it went nowhere in the Senate.

On May 23, the House again approved a bill to stop noncitizens from voting in D.C. elections. This time the vote was 262 to 143 — with 52 Democrats voting for it.

Yet, this week, our nation’s capital had its first local primary election where Russian and Chinese agents could legally vote.

Terence P. Jeffrey is the investigative editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation. To find out more about Terence P. Jeffrey and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Daily Caller

Trump Moves To Reverse Biden’s Green New Deal Agenda — With A Special Focus On Wind

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

Shares of big Danish offshore wind developer Orsted dropped by 17% Monday, the same day President Donald Trump took the oath of office to become the 47th president of the United States. The two events are not merely coincidental with one another.

To be sure, Orsted’s loss of market cap was caused by several factors, including both the general slowing of the offshore wind business, and Orsted’s own announcement that it will incur a $1.69 billion impairment charge related to its Sunrise Wind project off the coast of New York. Company CEO Mads Nipper  attributed the charge to delays and cost increases and said the project completion date is now delayed to the second half of 2027.

But there can be little doubt that the raft of energy-related executive orders signed by Trump also contributed to the drop in Orsted’s stock price. As part of a Day 1 agenda consisting of a reported 196 executive orders, the new president took dead aim at reversing the Biden Green New Deal agenda in general, with a special focus on wind power projects on federal lands and waters.

In addition to general orders declaring a national energy emergency and pulling the United States out of the Paris Climate Accords (for a second time), Trump signed a separate order titled, “Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government’s Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects.” That long-winded title (pardon the pun) is quite descriptive of what the order is designed to accomplish.

Section 1 of this order withdraws “from disposition for wind energy leasing all areas within the Offshore Continental Shelf (OCS) as defined in section 2 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1331.” Somewhat ironically, this is the same OCSLA cited in early January by former President Joe Biden when he set 625 million acres of federal offshore waters off limits to oil and gas leasing and drilling into perpetuity.

As with Biden’s LNG permitting pause, the fourth paragraph of Section 1 in Trump’s order states that  “Nothing in this withdrawal affects rights under existing leases in the withdrawn areas.” However, the same paragraph goes on to subject those existing leases to review by the secretary of the Interior, who is charged with conducting “a comprehensive review of the ecological, economic, and environmental necessity of terminating or amending any existing wind energy leases, identifying any legal bases for such removal, and submit a report with recommendations to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy.”

Observant readers will know that the parameters of this order as it relates to offshore wind are essentially the same as a proposal I suggested in a previous piece here on Jan. 1. So, obviously, it receives the Blackmon Seal of Approval.

But we should also note that Trump goes even further, extending this freeze to onshore wind projects as well. While the rationale for the freeze in offshore leasing and permitting cites factors unique to the offshore like harm to marine mammals, ocean currents and the marine fishing industry, the rationale supporting the onshore freeze cites “environmental impact and cost to surrounding communities of defunct and idle windmills and deliver a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, with their findings and recommended authorities to require the removal of such windmills.”

This gets at concerns long held by me and many others that neither the federal government nor any state government has seen fit to require the proper, complete tear down and safe disposal of these massive wind turbines, blades, towers and foundations once they outlive their useful lives. In most jurisdictions, wind operators are free to just abandon the projects and leave the equipment to dilapidate and rot.

The dirty secret of the wind industry, whether onshore or offshore, is that it is not sustainable without consistent new injections of more and more subsidies, along with the tacit refusal by governments to properly regulate its operations. Trump and his team understand this reality and should be applauded for taking real action to address it.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Continue Reading

illegal immigration

Trump directs feds to target cartels that threaten homeland security

Published on

ICE agents remove Mexican drug kingpin and leader of the Arriola Marquez Cartel, Oscar Arturo Arriola Marquez, from Texas to Mexico.                       

From The Center Square

By

President Donald Trump is directing federal agencies to target Mexican cartels and other foreign groups that are a threat to American citizens and national security.

Trump’s executive order designates Mexican cartels, the Venezuelan prison gang Tren de Aragua, Salvadoran La Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), and other organizations as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) and specially designated global terrorists (SDGTs) under the U.S. Constitution, Immigration and Nationality Act and International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

“International cartels constitute a national-security threat beyond that posed by traditional organized crime, with activities encompassing convergence between themselves and a range of extra-hemispheric actors, from designated foreign-terror organizations to antagonistic foreign governments; complex adaptive systems, characteristic of entities engaged in insurgency and asymmetric warfare; an infiltration into foreign governments across the Western Hemisphere,” the order states.

“The Cartels have engaged in a campaign of violence and terror throughout the Western Hemisphere that has not only destabilized countries with significant importance for our national interests but also flooded the United States with deadly drugs, violent criminals, and vicious gangs,” Trump’s order states. “They functionally control, through a campaign of assassination, terror, rape, and brute force nearly all illegal traffic across the southern border of the United States. In certain portions of Mexico, they function as quasi-governmental entities, controlling nearly all aspects of society.”

TdA and MS13 gang members also pose similar threats, engaging in “campaigns of violence and terror in the United States and internationally are extraordinarily violent, vicious, and similarly threaten the stability of the international order in the Western Hemisphere,” presenting “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.”

In response, Trump said, “I hereby declare a national emergency, under IEEPA, to deal with those threats.

“It is the policy of the United States to ensure the total elimination of these organizations’ presence in the United States and their ability to threaten the territory, safety, and security of the United States through their extraterritorial command-and-control structures” to protect Americans and the territorial integrity of the U.S.

He directed the secretary of State, secretary of the Treasury, attorney general, secretary of Homeland Security, and director of National Intelligence to take all appropriate action to implement his order.

He also instructed them to “make operational preparations regarding the implementation of any decision I make to invoke the Alien Enemies Act … in relation to the existence of any qualifying invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States by a qualifying actor, and to prepare such facilities as necessary to expedite the removal of those who may be designated under this order.”

Trump’s order comes after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and 21 Republican attorneys general for years called on the Biden administration to do so.

In September 2022, Abbott designated Mexican cartels as FTOs, issuing an executive order designating the Sinaloa Cartel, the Jalisco New Generation Cartel as foreign terrorist organizations,” The Center Square reported. He twice asked former President Joe Biden to do so and received no response.

Roughly one year ago, a coalition of 21 Republican attorneys general led by Virginia AG Jason Miyares also made the same request, argued an FTO designation was imperative because cartels are “assassinating rivals and government officials, ambushing, and killing Americans at the border, and engaging in an armed insurgency against the Mexican government,” The Center Square reported. “This dangerous terrorist activity occurring at our border will not abate unless we escalate our response.”

They also received no response – until Jan. 20, 2025.

The Center Square first reported on cartels using asymmetrical and nontraditional warfare targeting Americans as a reason for Texas to declare an invasion in 2022. No official state declaration was issued and the Texas AG’s office refused to issue a legal opinion on the matter despite numerous requests to do so. South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem was the only one to declare an invasion before a state legislature and 55 Texas counties declared an invasion, The Center Square exclusively reported.

On Trump’s first day in office, he declared an invasion at the southern border, the first president in modern history to do so.

Continue Reading

Trending

X