We are the drain the swamp people

Mr. Trump you are not exhibiting full disclosure as promised and YOUR  handling of the matter (by direction or oversight) only makes it look like a cover-up of some sort.  That is just sound advise. Indeed the admonition from you to one questioner at a press conference yesterday that reporters and all Americans  move on “to more important things” instead  of matters involving Epstein is deflecting and without merit. 

You have to know we don’t care about Epstein the creep — he died by hanging — we DO care about the young victims and the perps that are going unpunished and any cover-up. It was mind-boggling for you not recognize that legitimate concern.  Way to go. Prior to your expressed irritation and failed elucidation the matter was largely a Democrat scandal and now Mr 4D chess is making it a Trump administration scandal smacking of participation in a deep-state cover-up to protect . . . whoever.

Questions remain, legitimate questions about who was involved with Epstein.  By testimony of victims he was not the only perp.  The dismissal of the whole matter which YOU have so disdainfully given, now aggravates a question that was only a darker suspicion before.  I do not believe it but way to go  in fostering the specter Mr Heart of America / pulse of the people. 

While the all too coincidental  failures in the prison security systems  are compellingly suspicious the one minute gap in the released tape, not admitted to at the time, is either damning or an indication of egregious stupidity, a PR blunder at best.  It is not about you Mr President unless you make it so and you are in the process of doing just that. What people are properly concerned about is bringing to justice the other perps especially because they are rich and powerful.  Some of your defenders have intimated, that not knowing something or not releasing the files (and their chain of custody) is for our own good.  We say if you can handle it we can handle it.  Mr. Trump your authenticity, is dripping away because of this and your disdainfulness toward so many of your own supporters.

It is not us who should shut up and move on it is you who should straighten up and fly right. Actually engendering cynicism about the powers that includes you is not a good plan. Dance with the ones that brought you Donald.

Related reading: After Being Told for Months That Justice Was Coming, We Get Nothing – The Epstein Case Is Destroying Faith in the Government.

0

0

Knowing the legal slog it was likely to be, we have not commented in the months since Trump announced he was suing Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register for fraud claiming with solid reason that the publication of a poll  that was so bad, so off, so obviously an outlier that it must have been intended to  manipulate public opinion rather than enlighten readers.  We previously critiqued the poll in question in these pages:

Full record of Selzer’s/DMR-Mediacom /Iowa Poll not as accurate as leftist admirers wanted to believe

More on Selzer poll — defects and purposes – and the play of early voting

Des Moines Register / Selzer poll — It is no October surprise that some will sacrifice every ounce of integrity to save Harris

The Quad City Times reported yesterday: Trump moves lawsuit against Ann Selzer, Des Moines Register, from federal to state court.  As is typical of that publication  and or whoever they serve as a scribe, it was one-sided albeit with the disclaimer that  “Legal representation for Trump did not immediately respond to a comment request for this story.”  We can imagine they give them a few minutes to comment before “press time”  and were too busy to quote more extensively from the pleadings.  The article makes much of Iowa’s recent SLAPP lawsuit limitations which are  mentioned in the QCT article while intimating Trump’s effort would be legally meritless if he had not beat the deadline for implementation of the new standards.

I am not a legal expert nor do I know the applicability of anything I bring up here to the intricacies of the related law. My comments take a “commercial” analysis of duties that seem to be applied to other areas of commerce.  They also reflect an opinion formed about Selzer, The Des Moines Register the AP and most so-called newspapers. I do not like The Des Moines Register the AP or the Quad City Times but I am a mature consumer and appropriately skeptical about “reporting” but others are more accustomed to rely on “newspapers” for unbiased dependable information which The Des Moines Register does not provide. Yet they seek to sell their product as such.

Now I believe them to be prevaricators regularly by commission and omission. They are propagandists for a world view with just about everything they put out because of the particular spin and distortions they impart along with their omissions. My admittedly jaundiced opinion of those who lie when they claim to be anything other than brokers of biased information or opinion  would be more respectful If they would just admit it.  I admit to having biases in what I say and write. But those commercial enterprises make it a practice to appeal to their subscribers that they are unbiased purveyors. Bullshit.

So yes I think Trump’s charges are at least ethically correct. And for lack of truth in labeling by the defendants I also believe Trump has a commercial claim herein employing my unschooled analysis and that those outlets were engaged in an in-kind campaign contribution to the Harris campaign and the Democrat Party, again unschooled.  There was no adequate truth in labeling attendant to the poll.

Now it is a fact that the defendants are engaged in a commercial enterprise. The “anti-SLAPP” fog the AP article tries to impart in this article is from an outfit (the AP) with unclean hands itself, indeed a participant in the fraud. Now if they would all just admit that their view of free speech includes the right to lie, and represent bogus information as being produced without intentional bias, to offer or produce such while using contaminated or overrepresented “ingredients”, to be cavalier about the poll’s likely accuracy as a clear outlier (an ongoing fraud) and rather was intended to 1) influence the election in Iowa and nationwide 2) do so as an unreported in-kind campaign contribution and 3) to sell newspapers.  (Hmmm this all smacks of Russia-Gate as well and the Steele “dossier”).

The intentional promulgation of bogus information is clear in that the defendants are mature pollsters had to know the poll was an outlier (outliar) and that I am aware made no sufficient cautionary warning to that effect.  Any pro-forma disclaimer (not offered anyway that I am aware) was not offered on sufficiently cautionary or timely basis and was eliminated or minimized in order to achieve the goal of misinformation propping up a favored Party in order to defraud the Trump campaign (a competitor for influence) and consumers/voters while continuing to mislead  them that their product provided wholesome information.

They were engaged in selling their product with flagrant disregard for its wholesomeness and to warn the consumer of its deficiencies;  purport that the article was news when the product was commissioned and perpetrated by the defendants and further purported it to be “news” in its placement, not as commentary or opinion which is properly covered by free-speech rights within or without commercial enterprise except when it runs afoul of any regulatory law as to disclaimers. A disclaimer that “we are entitled to print bullshit and claim it to be pure” would be the most honest thing they have done in their careers. It would make a fine masthead.

0

0

Rich Lowry editor of National Review has a sanguine take on the idea that America is getting ripped off because of tariffs.  See the article here. Basically he seems to be saying that because under the current trade regime America is the envy of the world and has a commanding economic presence (ed note: for now) that system must be good for us. He offers some statistical references to supposedly prove it. The article was written a couple of days ago at NRO and distributed in other publications – note possible pay wall at NRO (reflecting balanced trade no doubt).  Anyway he believes that the high tariff scenario will diminish our economic standing.

Our views here at Veritas PAC about the direction of Trumps trade maneuvers are supportive from their monetary policy possibilities as well as establishing strategic independence .

And so to Rich Lowry, here are some we think countervailing points:

We admit to coming from a nationalistic mindset, call it tribal if you want. We are for more fare or reciprocal tariffs in order to help keep extensive productive capacity in operation in our country and not in theory (as Lowry perhaps suggests is good enough) on the presumption that the variety of components necessary,  skilled soft resources, raw materials and infrastructure are or would be readily at hand, just flip a switch or something.

When we had more doctrinaire free trade sympathies we did not realize the dark downsides and implications it creates — one world government —  “world trade federations’ world health organizations, G summit this and G summit that, none of them to be trusted as they are hallmarks of heavily managed society inuring to one-world government and bureaucratized to the extent one must get permission to do something from Belgium rather than say Bismarck where people are governed by a freedom protecting Constitution.

Raw statistics particularly measured in dollars as we are finding out can hide a lot –how valuable are those dollars when the country that supposedly stands behind them in some way is so much in debt — many many many trillions at a minimum. That we just keep printing more and more money may not be a good reflection of economic activity even adjusted for inflation. If the medium of exchange we promote is not accepted how much is our wealth? And differing with Lowry, when as they say the SHTF, country X might be in need of something more edible than our software. And indeed our society and our families, our culture must be well protected, and in house as to primary needs because without them in the short term many could be dead.

For me the nationalistic sentiments (which have many fathers) referred to as MAGA and its trade policies are about vulnerability in a world that is still volatile. They are about not being a patsy – financing other countries socialism even if it is a downfall for them — because entertaining their lifestyle is long-term pathogenic for both of us. It is about not enhancing or being dependent on other nations for production while our capabilities not merely deteriorate but become lost.

One country doing and selling what they do best and buying from another country what they do best is the mantra of globalism which human nature being what it is is a stalking horse for one-world government to monitor and police the agreements. Of course cheater countries abound because they take the logical progression seriously and are not about to abide by it for their own countries’ broader based industrial survival.

Rich you refer to “more tech and aerospace, less shoes and textiles” as key to our supposed economic health. But the tech (including aerospace) can be and is copied. Our aerospace is to a great extent military oriented and that is also used to protect freeloaders’ lifestyles.

By your lights why should we produce any shoes or textiles? We can “simply” go to India for them right? All manner of countries with their own specialty thinking it can hold the others hostage, no problem. Mutual assured destruction?

Given the dearth of manufacturing jobs and related spinoffs all those remaining workers can learn code right?   We do not think that is the formula for a country’s survival.

0

0

Scott County Republican Central Committee (SCRCC) candidate for Chairman Chuck Brockmann , a current Vice-Chair of the county party, responded to a letter he directly ascribes to current Chairman and candidate for reelection Jeanita McNulty.  Her letter responded to an invitation sent by Brockmann to SCRCC members inviting them to a meeting identified as a “Chuck Brockmann for Chairman ” event as somehow surreptitious.

We  posted  that letter with our comments earlier in the week. As we pointed out the letter was signed Scott County Republican Party — not under any personal signature but for which we have no doubt was at least authorized by McNulty.  An irony was that the putative letter from McNulty decried Brockmann for implying a meeting was an official act of Scott County Republicans (when it did not) by way of implying her letter was a formally approved action.   More of our comments follow Brockmann’s set forth below:

—– Forwarded Message —–

From: Chuck Brockmann <brockmannchuck@gmail.com>                                                 Sent: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 22:50:53 -0500 (EST)                                                                     Subject: Chuck Brockmann’s response to Jeanita’s email

Fellow Scott Republicans and Supporters,

Chuck Brockmann here, I’m running for Chairman of the Scott County Republican Central Committee executive board in the upcoming election on March 6th.  I’ve read the email Jeanita sent out today and her information is full of false accusations and slanderous lies.

For those that have not seen this email, I have attached it for you.  I encourage you to read it as it represents the exact political nonsense that my team and I will end after we win the election.  It is a desperate attempt to hang on to political power and I am terribly sorry she chose to send it to you.

At this time, I will only address one thing, my team and I will support and encourage all Central Committee members to remain neutral throughout the primary election process.  After the primary, we encourage everyone to support the winner.  We must unite and defeat the Democrats, and we can only do that together.

If necessary, I will address the rest of her falsehoods.

My team and I look forward to serving all of you on the Scott County Republican Central Committee.

Chuck

Our comments in the previous post were sent to current Chairman McNulty at her G-mail address and to the official G-Mail address of Scott County Republicans.  In those comments we inquired as to on what basis the organization’s bona fides were used — had (her) letter been vetted by at least all members of the Executive Committee. We have received no response to date from her or the “Scott County Republican Party”.

We support Brockmann to be the new Chairman of Scott County Republican Central Committee for his commitment to openness with  committee members and he will  facilitate the ability to contact one another.  McNulty’s insular approach to meetings and proprietary attitude toward committee and delegate membership communication avenues is straight out of participation killing “Control Mongering 101” , which is on the resume of every party incumbent sycophant. It is unbecoming to all members and only aggravates any animosity, helping no one.

+1

0

• What the GOP did particularly right — overwatch of voting processes

• What “they” did wrong — not playing rope-a-dope and keeping Biden in the race and spending so much time on hectoring about the mechanism of voting instead of inoculating the vote early on

Our General Observations: 

We agree that the GOP election process overwatch nationwide, along with marginal legislative efforts at insuring voting integrity (primarily in red-states), were key to reducing Democrat cheating, en masse anyway. But the other emphasis by the GOP of promoting the idea of voting by mail was against interests of the integrity of the vote and complicated the overwatch. Also, but for “vote by mail/ bank the vote” being such a resource hog, the vote might have been better for Trump and for GOP gains in congress with a relocation of resources to better expand the vote for Trump and in the process demoralize the Dem vote. 

Let us elaborate a bit more: **

We do not want Republicans or independents cheating on a onesy-twosy basis matching Democrats at their game.  At home voting means no photo ID at time of vote, and no overwatch as to coercion-intimidation-falsification or substituted judgment (voting for someone else) and no contemporaneous observed signature. It is absolutely the most insecure way of voting and then at the other end it has to rely on signature verification and lengthier counting periods complicating validation and overwatch. Signature verification is a joke anyway.

The GOP apparat says they won with vote by mail and banking efforts in that regard. Our view is that typical of credit grabbers they just love the paid hustle, whatever it is. Resources spent repetitively hectoring people to vote early by mail cuts into motivational and expansive messaging and availability of funds for early messaging to inoculate the population and grow the GOP base.

People know how to vote, if they are interested they will vote. Voters in the 1960s and 70s voted at as high or higher a rate with a relativly minuscule amount of vote by mail, less voting opportunities in person, less transportation availability and voting largely constricted to one day.
Make people interested. Put patriotism in them, educate them, expose the Democrats as a party, begin in early spring even February promoting party alongside primary election messaging by candidates (which will help those candidates be more consistent in their messaging) .

We also believe it was/is a phony claim to say that “banking the vote” saves money. Id like to see an audit validating that claim. My view is it wastes money assuming people do not know how to vote. Every repetitive sentence used to hector or explain how to vote early by mail is wasted breath that cuts into motivational messaging.

As previously mentioned it cuts into growth messaging and funds to do so. As long as one person in a household holds to voting securely, which means voting in person and holding to the good-government concept of voting no more than a few days before Election Day — that household continues to receive all the stupid hectoring because “bank the vote” — never mind that it is the HOUSEHOLD being hectored.

The intimidating tone goes that if you “bank the vote” “we” won’t “have to” continue to contact you with breathless information on how to vote early by mail. Oh they tried to fine tune it with vote records but the “we see you have not voted” big-brotherism is endemic and the general ads and admonishments continue unabated, — wasted messaging on all but a very few. It is narrow messaging that hits the voted and the high propensity just the same, forgoing actual growth and suppression messaging for messaging about the mechanism and timing of voting. They used guilt as well, insufferably trying to instill guilt for not voting early – now suddenly de rigueur. Door knocking to encourage voting is fine, but giving people the bum’s rush, inculcating vote-by-mail is against good-government interests.

It should be understood that Trump 47 is only a plurality president (albeit he did better than Trump 45) not breaking 50% with Harris being only 1.5% behind him. Why so many who can read the results keep saying Trump “won the popular vote” I do not know. He was the most popular of the various candidates but somewhat more voters preferred someone else.

Arguably key to his strong plurality win is not that Trump was so overall enthralling (he brought unnecessary negatives to the table affecting leaners) but that the Democrats found someone worse than Hillary in the form of Kamala Harris and the utter failure of the Biden-Harris administration on the economy, the border, the culture and foreign policy. The majority of voters in fringe parties might have given the actual popular vote to Harris although thank God and the system Trump would have still won the electoral college and thus the election.

It is frightening that the Dems did as well as they did. Nearly half or more of the country went for a Marxist, more clearly so than ever before, along with so many leftist congressional candidates.

Several of the GOP nomination candidates would have beaten dementia Joe Biden, but Trump in the biggest potential GOP political blunder of the election, helped bring in Kamala and reenergize the Dems and thereby arguably limit coattails in the election.
Agreeing to debate Joe against protocols and thus helping expose Joe and knock him out of the race was stupid, certainly not 4D chess. With Biden the Dems were totally demoralized. Trump should have let sleeping dogs lie and not agreed to Biden’s own stupid bravado. All he had to claim was “protocol” but I guess we could not expect that from the guy who refused to debate his Republican challengers reserving his own debate bravado for a dementia ridden Democrat. It was impulsive for Trump to agree. He should have mustered the discipline to let Dems be saddled with Joe.

With a replacement for Dementia Joe they were able to raise probably $2 billion and kept hope alive . . . they found themselves stuck with Kamala but it was quite possible they could have picked another candidate by perhaps buying Kamala off, like she did with Oprah and Beyonce and “influencers”. That Dems could keep their vote in line as much as they did with Kamala, they could have done so with someone else. Maybe not, maybe so.
But the most secure thing to do for us was run against Joe and also best for the down-ticket races. The Dem’s problem of being saddled with a still really bad replacement candidate was their mistake not Trump’s brilliance. And not having Biden as Trump’s opponent arguably prevented an actual popular win by Trump.

Getting off track a bit as to the messaging battle, the Dems tried to win on abortion which was/is a big part of their problem. Abortion was all they used but it only helped hold a small part of their base, that element was still likely to vote for Harris and Dems anyway. Abortion produced an abortion of a campaign.

Anyway, there should have been no Democrat wins in a CD that went for Trump. As it was there were 12. True, the GOP picked up votes but I believe the failures and distaste for Democrat performance increased GOP trends (a relative concept) more than whether people voted early by mail.

Messaging and now organic distaste for Dem’s suppressed Democrat vote. Good messaging is more important than voting early by mail because good messaging both suppresses the opposition and enhances the GOP across the board. Weakness in the opposition was more important in 2024 than voting early by mail.

So now we have the narrowest of majorities in the Congress. I am grateful we have majorities at all but the situation is dicey, to say the least. I think we would have done better congressionally, long and short term, running aggressively as a party (however Trumpish in tone) against the Dem Party, against anyone connected to the Democrat party for all their egregious failures. Maybe just 3 or 4 CD’s might have followed but we need every bit of such a margin.

So the apparat is crowing and remains big on “early”, perhaps putting a damper on federal efforts at reform. I only accept that “early” is good when it comes to starting and then sustaining inoculating messaging. But this go-around that would have had to begun “early” at a time when the apparat was falling all over themselves saying ~~ we have this now, we will beat them with “early voting by mail” ~~ their mechanism — wasting resources on related stupid messaging ad nauseam.

Voting Republican is what is key, whenever it is done. Voting by mail does not increase the vote. Your opposition having eggregiously bad candidates suppresses their vote and having a better alternative candidate (we had that) and exploiting the difference with messaging is key.

By the way, further marginalizing the situation in Congress, at least temporarily, is Trump raiding some of the incumbent and reelected personnel. To the extent they come from GOP areas still means more money must be spent on those races rather than “banking” that money and using it to sustain the effort of change with supportive messaging and holding GOP incumbents feet to the fire.

*It is certainly arguable but we believe Stein votes would have virtually all gone to Harris or not voted. RFK votes were so calcified his support of Trump so well known, that these diehards would not have voted for Trump or Harris and likely not voted. Same for Oliver — hard core Libertarians had problems with Trump and they are impractical and hidebound. “Other” vote totals and write-ins cannot be predicted.  Source of totals:   https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2024&off=0&f=0&elect=0

**  This commentary, slightly edited here was also part of a comment to Townhall this day.

0

0

All three went for Trump.

Maybe G*d hasn’t given up on the USA just yet

This appeared around 430PM on Tuesday November 5th., facing East.  Photo credit to RN.

0

0

Selzer’s full record not as pristine as leftist admirers believe

Referencing Selzer’s final poll prior to the 2024 General election, the one she was so wrong about Trump v Harris, Fox reports she published that:

In the 1st Congressional District, 53% of respondents said they preferred the Democratic candidate, while 37% said they would vote or have already voted for the Republican. Democratic challenger Christina Bohannan, therefore, has a 16-point lead over Republican incumbent Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks in their 2022 rematch contest.

The actual result was that Republican Miller-Meeks has prevailed albeit narrowly, nevertheless indicating that besides Trump Selzer was 16 points off in her final poll for that race.

In 2022 Selzer early October released her poll of the statewide race for Attorney General, Republican challenger Brenna Bird  was said by Selzer to be 16 points behind Tom Miller, the longest serving AG in the country. According to the DMR’s own article:

Forty-nine percent of likely voters say they would vote for Miller, a Democrat, compared with 33% who choose Bird, a Republican.

money shot comes later and it isn’t pretty

Brenna Bird defeated Miller by 1 point , making for a 17 p0int fiasco of a poll for Selzer.  True, it was not Selzer’s final poll of the race which then showed a much closer race (still with Brenna loosing) but not to pick up the trend just a couple weeks out is a fools gold standard. There is a game that can be played by pollsters, to bolster or deflate who they want to earlier on, and in order to achieve some credibility provide a more professional poll in the one that is used for comparison to actual voting results — the final poll.

/////

Regarding the June 2010 Republican primary, Selzer showed Bob Vander Plaats at 29%  against then former governor Terry Branstad who she showed at 57%  — a 28 point spread.

https://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=325152

The primary results were Vander Plaats ~~ 40.9% Branstad 50.3 %.   She was off by 18.6 points — clearly unable to evaluate for that race who was likely to turn out, where a candidates support was likely coming from, or lacked any ability (or perhaps desire) to reach them.

////

Election lawyer and columnist Orly Taitz produced a chart of Selzer’s performance:

Pollster Ann Selzer was off by as much as 10.5% in prior elections

From the chart, some other races Selzer was in significant error :

In the 2008 Presidential general election Obama v McCain her poll was off 7.5 from the election results which was outside the margin of error for her poll. In the 2006 Iowa congressional race of Braley v Walen she was off 9+, comparing final poll to election results. In the 1998 Vilsack v. Lightfoot race her final poll was off 10 pts to actual.   In high profile contentious races either Republicans don’t like to talk to pollsters like Selzer or she is using unrepresentative respondents or has more fliers than her sycophants realize.

0

0

REPUBLICANS GAIN US SENATE AND KEEP  US HOUSE*

Trump beats Harris by 13+% in Iowa = over 214,000 votes.

Des Moines Register’s Ann Selzer on suicide watch (see previous post).

Miller-Meeks ekes out another squeaker,

 Trump wins Scott County for first time  

Abortionists, where is thy sting.  Everyone on your billboards here won reelection handily Vondran- Kauffman – Mohr – Mommsen and  Justice May on other ads, their main target, who was up for retention. Those lying spots you spent so much money on against Miller-Meeks – you failed miserably.

More analysis later 

0

0