By John Q. Hosedrinker 
According to recent reporting, individuals associated with former President Trump are reportedly exploring the declaration of a national emergency to potentially seize control of the upcoming November elections. This alleged plan, outlined in a draft executive order, centers on claims of Chinese interference in the 2020 election as justification for extraordinary presidential power over voting. This strategy echoes historical tactics used by authoritarian leaders to consolidate power by suspending civil liberties and rigging democratic processes under the guise of crisis. The article argues that such actions, if unchecked, represent a grave threat to American democracy and can only be prevented by widespread public awareness and opposition.
Read the original article here
The idea of a plot to manufacture an election emergency, ostensibly to ensure a specific electoral outcome, is unsettlingly familiar and echoes tactics seen in authoritarian regimes throughout history. This proposed scheme, which suggests requiring every American to re-register to vote before the 2026 elections, even those who have been consistently participating, is not merely an administrative change; it’s a fundamental assault on democratic processes. The supposed justification for such a drastic measure – a fabricated claim that China hacked the 2020 election to aid Biden, and that Trump was either aware or incapable of preventing it – is a narrative woven with threads of pure fiction.
This elaborate fiction conveniently sidesteps the obvious contradiction: if a foreign power could so easily manipulate an election to install Biden, why wouldn’t they simply repeat the feat in 2024, rather than requiring such convoluted and disruptive measures? The sheer absurdity of the premise highlights its nature as a manufactured crisis. Those pushing for this agenda are not engaged in a legitimate political debate; they are actively working to dismantle democratic institutions, employing deceit and manipulation with a clear intent to undermine the foundations of fair elections.
Crucially, it’s essential to remember that the Executive branch, by constitutional design, holds absolutely no inherent authority over the administration of elections. The power to manage elections rests squarely with the individual states, a bedrock principle of American federalism. Any attempt to unilaterally seize this authority, particularly through an executive order, represents a direct challenge to the U.S. Constitution and must be met with the most vigorous and unwavering opposition.
When examining the characteristics of authoritarianism, many align eerily with the actions being proposed. The relentless promotion of nationalism, a disregard for fundamental human rights, the systematic identification and demonization of enemies, and an obsession with security are all hallmarks. The manipulation of media narratives, the intertwining of government and certain ideologies, and the suppression of dissent are further indicators. Perhaps most alarmingly, the playbook includes the deliberate and pervasive use of fraudulent elections as a tool for maintaining power.
The notion that a single executive can unilaterally alter the fundamental rules of elections is not just mistaken; it is a dangerous delusion. The Constitution explicitly delegates election oversight to the states, and any executive overreach in this domain is a direct affront to that foundational document. The tactics employed are not novel or sophisticated; they are a rehashing of well-worn authoritarian strategies, a clear indication that those behind this plot are operating from a pre-existing script. The question that remains is whether the American populace will stand by and allow this blatant attempt to subvert the democratic process to succeed.
There is a tendency to describe these actions as merely “authoritarian-like” or “potentially fascist.” However, the evidence suggests a more direct and alarming reality: a full-fledged embrace of authoritarian dictatorship. The actions are not merely suggestive of fascism; they embody its core tenets. The lack of legitimate authority for such executive actions is undeniable. Furthermore, any such executive order would face insurmountable legal challenges, with states and individuals rightfully suing to protect their electoral sovereignty. The fear expressed is not that these actions will succeed through legitimate means, but that the sheer force of will and the disregard for law might push them through, driven by a desperate desire to avoid accountability.
The proposed voter re-registration scheme, akin to voter suppression measures disguised as security protocols, is particularly insidious. The SAVE Act, for example, introduces hurdles that can disproportionately affect those with limited resources or access to documentation. Each day such a measure is not passed is another day the system is designed to disenfranchise voters. This deliberate obstruction is not merely inefficient; it is actively malicious, designed to erode the very concept of universal suffrage.
The narrative of election fraud, devoid of any credible evidence, is a classic authoritarian tactic used to delegitimize electoral processes and create an excuse for control. Lawyers admitting in court that they are not alleging fraud, despite attempting to overturn election results, underscores the manufactured nature of these claims. It is a desperate attempt to cling to power by any means necessary, even if it means fabricating crises and attacking the integrity of the electoral system itself.
The idea that an executive order can override constitutional protections and established electoral processes is fundamentally flawed. The courts and Congress have roles to play in preventing such overreach. However, the speed at which these actions can be implemented and the potential for them to bypass public scrutiny or legal challenges before significant damage is done is a critical concern. The erosion of democratic norms and institutions, often masked as necessary reforms or responses to manufactured emergencies, has been a gradual but accelerating process, leading to a situation where more extreme measures seem increasingly plausible.
The notion of creating “National Unique Voter Numbers” that could potentially be tied to individual ballots raises the specter of a secret ballot no longer being secret. This move would represent a complete shift towards total governmental control over voting, allowing for the tracking and potential manipulation of individual votes. The logistical challenges and the inherent disenfranchisement that would result from forcing all citizens to re-register in person, especially with the disparate capacities of rural versus urban areas to handle such a task, clearly point towards a deliberate intent to create obstacles and sow chaos, reminiscent of tactics used in pre-WWII Germany to disenfranchise specific populations.
The alarming speed at which these seemingly absurd justifications for dismantling established processes are gaining traction is a testament to the erosion of critical thinking and the normalization of extreme rhetoric. The danger lies in the incremental nature of these attacks; each perceived “emergency” or “reform” chips away at democratic safeguards, making subsequent, more egregious actions seem less shocking. The comparison to historical events and the current trajectory towards authoritarianism is not hyperbole; it is a sober assessment of the unfolding reality. The current political climate seems to be accelerating towards a cliff edge, with a disturbing lack of effective checks and balances.