Select Page

Main Secretary of State takes Trump off ballot

Main Secretary of State takes Trump off ballot

Maine’s Secretary of State Shenna Bellows has bellowed.  She has unilaterally ordered that President Trump be banned from the ballot in the Pine Tree State.  There was no due process — no trial.  There was no court order.  She just responded to a citizen request. 

Before addressing her decision, it is pertinent to know who she is.  Based on her resume, Bellows is on the radical fringe of the Democratic Party – both as a political activist and public official.  At 48 years old, she is also an obviously ambitious politician who has served several terms in the Maine State Senate and now as Secretary of State.  However, she is not a lawyer or constitutional scholar.

I suspect that Bellows fully understands that her decision is not founded in law or the Constitution – and will be overturned.  Trump will appear on the Maine ballot.  There is no way the Supreme Court can allow state courts or one highly partisan unhinged public official to interpret the Constitution, personally determine an insurrection and potentially decide the outcome of a presidential election by unilaterally nullifying the votes of millions of Americans.

There are no sufficient words to describe Bellows’ action.  Outrageous? Arrogance?  Hubris? Authoritarian?  Abuse of power? (Add your own here.)

The obvious motivation for her decision is … political grandstanding.  This obscure politician in a relatively insignificant state – politically speaking – has managed to get herself on every major national news cast and on the front page of most newspapers.  She has broken out of political anonymity to be the darling of the national progressive establishment.  

Methinks I hear the sounds of a gubernatorial or senatorial campaign revving up.  Sounds like the sap will be running in the Pine Tree State.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.

18 Comments

  1. Frank stetson

    As Horist would say: it’s legal.

    Feel free to appeal.

    • Dan tyree

      Appeal and win. There’s no reason for this except the fear that people are figuring it out

  2. larry Horist

    Chief Justice Frank Stetson …. LOL Legal? It may not even be constitutional. Your personal opinion — stated as fact — is both arrogant and foolish. We need to await the Supremes — and I do not mean the singing group.

    • FRANK STETSON

      LOL is right. IF she did something illegal, you would be on it like white on rice. After the Trump-SCOTUS writes new law to tell each of the 50 States what to do in 14th, S3 interpretation, she still won’t be convicted of anything, because she has done nothing illegal that you or anyone else can tell us.

      Prove that opinion wrong, today, blowhard. What Maine law or Federal law has she broken?

      • larry Horist

        Frank Stetson … Aren’t you tired of playing the moran? We will not know if her action is legal … constitutional … or illegal until the Supreme Court steps in. If it were clearly legal, why would she stay the order until the high Court decided? Even she is not certain her order will stand. The legality is currently questionable. Of course she does not face any legal repercussion, but that does not make here order legal. It is like when a President gets slapped down by the Court for abusing power. Get it? Geez!!

        • FRANK STETSON

          “Frank Stetson … Aren’t you tired of playing the moran?” I think when you call someone a name like this, lowering yourself as impotent to argue based on the facts, and relying on the personal attack to make you feel better, it’s a good thing to be on firm ground. Horist stands in the quicksand of his mind. I just don’t know why he needs the embellishment.

          First, It’s moron, not moran.

          Second, you fumble-mouth, but say: “We will not know if her action is legal … constitutional … or illegal until the Supreme Court steps in.” I see. It’s legal, but if an appeal is made, it’s in limbo…. More like if you don’t like it, it’s in limbo until YOUR Scotus decides what the law is. Cool process if you can get it. It’s legal, but on appeal.

          Third, the story is about Maine, or Main in your case. The SCOTUS will rule on Colorado where the stay was put in place. Not Maine. Probably that will affect Maine, but not a 100% possibility.

          Fourth, I think Maine is on stay, but Trump is appealing Maine to the Maine Supreme Court, not the SCOTUS; I believe the stay, if it exists, is different therefore.

          “If it were clearly legal, why would she stay the order until the high Court decided?” Because someone has challenged the legality. As in IT”S LEGAL but being appealed. That makes it challenged, not illegal. And that’s Colorado, not Maine.

          The Maine, or in your case, Main, is not a court action, but an SoS action. Does the Trump ban have a stay on it? It may, it may come from the Colorado SCOTUS appeal or the Maine Trump Supreme Court appeal, I am not sure. You don’t seem to know what State you are talking about, can’t spell Maine, get confused where Colorado is, so I am not sure you know either.

          “Even she is not certain her order will stand. The legality is currently questionable.” So you admit that it must be legal at this time if the legality is being questioned. Open mouth, insert foot.

          “Of course, she does not face any legal repercussion, but that does not make here order legal.” It’s her, not here.” So if you don’t have a legal repercussion, isn’t it legal? If illegal, there’s repercussion. Wouldn’t Trumplicants be filing civil suits at minimum. Fact is EVEN if SCOTUS bans the bans across the land, these actions will not have broken the law. PERIOD. Ever. May not ever be able to legally do it again, but they will not be ILLEGAL. period. period.

          “It is like when a President gets slapped down by the Court for abusing power. Get it? Geez!!” That’s probably called illegal if the Court “slaps the President down,” however there are not enough facts to tell how illogical your argument is. What court? What abuse? Do you have an example?
          Face it, if you like it, it’s legal. If you don’t like it, it must be illegal. Hypocrite.

          • larry Horist

            Frank Stetson …The claim in Maine is the same refrain. Her actions are not criminal, as you seem to think I am saying. But they may not be legal or constitutional. You do not seem to comprehend the difference. You are jumping ahead of the Supreme Court with your baseless conclusion.

  3. AC

    Horist, you say potato, the judges say patatoe. You think it’s going to rain, state AG sees not a cloud in the sky.
    If the courts rule against your opinion’s view. They are Democrat influenced.
    You don’t see January 6, 2021 at the Capital Build was a Trump initiated insurrection.
    Of course you are being you. But when the other shoe drops, Trump’s appeal fails, and more State Supreme Court justices follow suit, will you hang on to your opinion?
    Then, again, this question may be moot. The long arm of the law is circling Trump. His illegalities are legion. This November’s election is a long way off. His champagne for POTUS 2.0 could fail when he’s indicted.
    If the improbable happens, the electorate by a majority votes for Trump and the Electoral College gifts him his wish. Congress could impeach him a third time and Senators expel him.
    The turbulent rushing waters of US politics and electorate’s mood swings tear the foundation on which the bridge Trump built stands, for the moment.

    And, here’s your sign (a comedian’s refrain something like. “You Think!”)

    • Harold blankenship

      You’re a damned fool and a liar. Trump didn’t commit insurrection. Why don’t you bitch about the so called summer of Floyd? That was insurrection. You want insurrection? Stfu or you will get insurrection with a big red bow on it. You lefties are more likely to commit insurrection. Who called for burning the country down? I’ll give you a clue. Hood rats and street scum

      • larry Horist

        Harold Blankenship …There are riots and there are insurrections. I would say the closest we have seen to insurrection was in the left wing occupy movement –especially in Portland — where they attacked government building and took over an area and declared it autonomous from the United States. They held a police headquarter for weeks. The folks in DC were asking the Congress to not certify the election based on their belief that there were irregularities in certain states. Nothing illegal about that. In 2016, Democrat House members voted against the certification of Trump’s election. An element of the crowd went overboard and engaged in a classic riot of the type we have seen over the years in city after city. I have written in the past that I think the fake electors was illegal and the dumbest idea ever. But even that does not rise to the lever of insurrection — maybe election fraud. The prosecutor in Georgia is not charging any of them with insurrection. Even if a small group had insurrection on their mind — such as the Proud Boys — that does not automatically apply to the larger group. And we have seen that in the fact that the vast majority of the arrested have not been charged with insurrection. Now is that a charge being leveled at Trump by the Special Counsel. It is a lot more complicated than the Trump haters think — and they might get surprised as the dust settles on all these cases.

  4. FRANK STETSON

    ppppsssst, Harold —- black folk are the new Republican party……don’t you read Horist?

    And one more time, for the record, if they break the law, they should be investigated, arrested, and convicted, according to law. Independent of party, religious, or in your case —- stupidity level.

    IOW —- convict all the guilty of which Trump is one. Already adjudicated guilty a number of times. His henchmen are pleading guilty, more every day, his insurrectionists blame him for their evil deeds on 1.6.2021, over 400 in jail, and plenty of summer of floyd criminals caught, arrested, convicted and serving out their punishments.

    I will not STFU, bring on your insurrection, bring on your big red bow you cross-dressing drag queen, and we will serve you some Capitol delights too. Come on, bring it. Bring down the thunder. Quit bloviating about it and just do it. Grow a pair, put those big boy pants on, and just come on and do it.

    • Harold blankenship

      Start serving anytime you ignorant piece of shit. A joe and ho ain’t getting re-elected. So don’t count on them losers. They will be pushed out of the race because the democrats know now that stealing the election with them idiots was a stupid move. But keep the faith. They might pull another steal. And maybe illegal wet backs can move into your house.

  5. JOHN JEZIORO

    It is all just a ploy to find something against Trump. It has been going on since he announced his candidacy when he came down the escalator. So what’s new.

  6. FRANK STETSON

    Hey Horist. Pot-kettle much? They say that insanity is the sincerest form of flattery. According to Horist, Stetson is obsessed, he’s insane, he’s morphing into the ANTIHORIST. He monitors my readership, watches them and tracks their movements, while reporting frequently how few read as many respond, apparently to unread posts. He’s obsessed he screams as he reads and watches and counts some more.

    Florida’s Resident Political Hack Larry Horist, the Prince of DeSantistan, has piled his horishit deep and wide this time. He has unilaterally defined Secretary of State Shenna Bellows as not only representing all Democrats, all States, but decries her as being on the radical fringe because he saw the Republican-killing four-letter word: ACLU. There was no due process, little hard evidence and no change to Maine State electoral laws. He just wings it, blasts away, and doesn’t even pick up his spent casings. Bad ass brass ass-hat he is.

    Before addressing his horishit story, it is pertinent to know who he is. Based on his resume, Horist is on the radical trumplicant fantasy fringe of what used to be the Republican Party – both as a political activist, party worker and wannabe-but-spanked public official. At over 100 years old in his mind, he is also an obvious second-string political hack who gopher-served several real national politicians from Middle Earth eons ago. Do you remember Nixon? However, he is not a lawyer, constitutional scholar, or even partly knowledgeable in Maine State electoral law. He has shopped at LL Beans.

    I suspect that Horist fully understands that his article is not founded in law or the Constitution – and will be forgotten immediately by his scant handful of illiterate readers. Trump will appear on the Maine ballot. The Trump-packed Trumplicant Supreme Court will overturn Maine State Law, Colorado State Law, and the law in every State in America, claiming some arcane piece of Constitutional History stemming back to England’s Monarchy no doubt allowing an ex=President who literally watched Rome burn while eating burgers and watching on the tube so that millions can vote for a digital rapist, business cheat, China money grabbing criminal for President. Just like the anti-abortion, anti-personal choice, anti-pro-choice SCOTUS decision but in reverse. This time the State’s lose the right to choose their laws and the SCOTUS will decide who can run for office FOR the States.

    There are no sufficient words to describe Horist’s story. Outrageous? Arrogance? Hubris? Authoritarian? Abuse of power? (Add your own here.)

    The obvious motivation for his writing is … political grandstanding and a dire desperation of losing, even though he’s winning. Because he has been here before. Larry knows losing. Larry loves losing. But Larry cannot face the fact he IS a loser, and always will be. This obscure politician wannabee from a relatively insignificant state where he hates the City of his youth back in the 60’s – politically speaking – has managed to get himself on not a single national news cast or on the front page of most newspapers. He did make the Boca Raton Pennysaver after buying a 2-column ad. Full color. He has broken out of political anonymity to reach pundit obscurity as the back-bench darling of the national regressive deplorable establishment.

    Methinks, I hear the sounds of a Biden Crime Family must be Impeached editorial campaign revving up. Sounds like the verbal diarrhea will be running in DeSantistan where the Surgeon General recommends that covid vaccines are deadly and never should be taken seriously. The science

    • larry Horist

      Poor little Frankie. LOL What a stupid tirad — with your usual repeated list of political grievances and string of irrational insults. I can always count on you to reveal the shallow intellectually-challenged child that drives your obsession with me, Joe, and the entire PBP crew. Question. Do you stomp your feet and pound the desk when you compose these tantrums? LOL

  7. AC

    The title heading up this piece is misleading.
    “MAIN SECRETARY OF STATE…….” Who is this person Horist is whining about whilst attempting knowledge of The State of Maine and her Constitutional Law.
    Is she the main secretary in this northeastern proud State of our good nation. Perhaps, truth be told she is the legally elected Secretary of State serving well all residents domiciled in Maine
    I do believe, your opinion has no appeal, or traction with Maine’s people and certainly not a word of yours reached court justices deciding Trump’s case.
    Mainly, since you have not heard any mention that Maine responded one way or the other. Means PBP and you do not have a Maine contingency.
    Their loss, wouldn’t you think. Conservatives in Maine, there must be some, are sorely uninformed in all things Horistic approved

    • larry Horist

      AC. You wax on with pseudo literary artistry that makes what you write largely incomprehensible. Of course your opinions are ignorant wishful thinking. Actually, I do have a following in Maine — and have traction with some folks in the Pine Tree State.. LOL. And in the first sentence, I gave you the name of the Maine Secretary of State. If you were misled, it was only due to your failed reading comprehension. Perhaps you were having a senior moment as you were reading. AC… You are just an old fool trying desperately –and unsuccessfully — to sound articulate.

  8. AC

    Larry,
    Thank you for the unbiased critique. Well thought out and thorough composition that it is Your comments on my account are of a similar political strain. I am not surprised. You have given the same slight in condemning fashion to others. I am not alone.
    That you had a response and shared it at all is a sign.
    As with all media information I consume, each receives consideration in the amount it deserves is due.
    Information, entertainment, edification, fiction, or truth these are just a few. Which category fits when I consider the comments from you depends entirely on whether I judge ‘tis true.

    That reply, as sincere as I saw it was, was received in my Gmail box in time and saved me my time and trouble. No use do I see in my reply to your fanciful hilarious to me Halley story

    Gathering your tortured mind fragments into anything close to the gist of a message intended in what you sent. From you wished to convey, the impression is you have the marrow perceptibly of a person possessed of a closed mind. True understanding with fair regard and just consideration the person must break out off the constraints imposed by the comfortable familiarity that a mental box brings.
    So Sad ‘tis