We are the drain the swamp people

Recent Davenport Community School District Board Meeting — all seats filled overwhelmingly by opponents of mandatory masking — Speakers were 10 to 1 against mandates

Key issues for local elections — mask/vaccine mandates and “social emotional learning (SEL) learning / critical race theory (CRT) … and a proper understanding of the “freedom to choose” campaigns

Given what is now known about the ineffectiveness of masks as worn and mandates as implemented, the practically nil risk to school age children from the disease masks are supposedly worn to prevent, and the harm mask mandates do to student health, socialization, and teaching  — any candidate unclear on the matter or compromising on the matter or in support of a mandate regime is unqualified for office

Sometimes for a given election, because of the inability, failure or refusal of candidates to be forthcoming, and instead to be lazy about getting their message out, to want to hide their positions, to be unresponsive to inquiries, to hedge or not be definitive or respond clearly to questionnaires —  the decision as to whom to support comes down to just a couple of issues that may have risen to a sufficient level of community concern and awareness.

Such issues are important on their own, salient to the elected position and through political experience known or likely to be a fairly reliable indicator or proxy for a host of unstated positions.  They are reflective of a basic philosophy that predicts approaches to various positions. Some might be dispositive or disqualifying others might be a reliable affirmation of supportability — a “qualifying”matter  in the face of someone worse.

The matters of mask mandates and teaching of critical race theory (monitoring to insure it is not taught through subterfuge by teachers ignoring state law) are such issues at the forefront of  this Tuesday’s local school board elections.

In Davenport there are two candidates who are running as write-in candidates because none of those on the ballot have committed to no mask mandates for grades pre-school through K and opposition to CRT indoctrination. There is one candidate, incumbent  Bruce Potts who we are told has a Republican registration and who appealed to Scott County Republicans for support.  To his credit he opposed the Lincoln School giveaway (see earlier posts) but who according to his statements to the QCTimes is OK with mask mandates for older children.  Here are the relevant responses to the QC Times questions of the four people appearing on the ballot.  They are not good, which is a key reason for write-in candidates Hannah Doyle and James Quinn.

Beck: supports following the guidance of public health agencies, such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Gordon: Supports following the recommendations of the CDC and other public health agencies.

Potts: Supported choice on masking for older students, but proposed a mask mandate for elementary schools because younger students cannot yet be vaccinated.

Powell: Supports masking if that is what data indicates children need to be safe but said there needs to be compromise if possible — relaxing the requirement in some circumstances if it can be done, for example.

Note that all candidates listed on the ballot are OK with mandates in spite of state law, science, and good sense.  Beck  and Potts are incumbents.  Neither deigned to respond to the more extensive on-topic River City Reader questionnaire for all candidates including announced write-in candidates Hannah Doyle and James Quinn.  The only announced candidates running for Davenport School Board who oppose mask mandates are Hannah Doyle and James Quinn. We encourage Davenport School District residents to write in their names on the ballot this Tuesday.

Party affiliation can to some degree, however imperfectly, serve as reason enough to vote for someone compared to a Democrat — School Board Candidate Potts for example appealed to Republicans recently at a Central Committee event. Generally speaking being a Democrat in America ought to be a disqualifier for races down through dog-catcher — whether or not the elected position is considered non-partisan.  However such does not always mean not being a registered Democrat qualifies you.

As parties have developed — party affiliation serves to reflect degrees of comfort with government bureaucracies, the level and scope of government, the welfare state  (manageability)  of citizens and perfectibility, earth worship vs stewardship, national sovereignty, selective behavioral licenses and more. Democrats are a party captured by extreme leftists and which serves those interests.  To a great extent then “party” is a proxy for the culture thing or at least to reflect understanding and appreciation of our constitutional republic.

Now if one is forced to pick between Democrats (no one else on ballot) one can properly take a position of picking the least onerous. The problem with that is that one is advancing a person still likely to caucus with a very bad gang and thereby serve to advance a host of bad ideas and people that can undo anything the “good Democrat” might be reasonable about. Being a Democrat is then largely disqualifying. That is especially true as regards a legislative body. But hold your nose and vote can apply.

This is not to say that RINOs deserve support in a primary (if one is a constitutionalist and platform-supporting Republican) when there are substantially truer candidates running for the nomination.  Electability claims are usually bogus self-serving applications of a vague changeable concept that denigrates the party base that primary.  If there i party unity then even a truer to Republican principles write-in candidate is electable.

When only a RINO has announced for the nomination party leadership ought to consider drafting a candidate, supporting a write-in campaign for the primary or focusing on pushing for party discipline. In a general election if the RINO is considered the go to person — for true-to-conservatism Republican — not voting or supporting the Democrat “to send a message” in most situations is shooting yourself in the foot or worse. But if a  write-in or third-party candidate possibility exists that person can be a viable alternative although a big dose of practical politics pertains.

Fortunately that is not the situation for the local school board elections in Iowa. School boards are not organized along party lines as in a legislature. Advancing issues is what is key (however associated with party doctrine).  Party is not identified on the ballot. Assuming the grapevine informs people of the candidates’ party affiliations a person with no affiliation could well be superior to a nominal Republican. And, as explained in  previous posts, write-in candidates running on the right issue(s) can have a real shot in spite of not having the advantage of being on the ballot.

Two people running in the general election Tuesday in Davenport are right on the key issues – against mask mandates and opposition to the teaching in any subterfuge of so called  social emotional learning (SEL)  and its hate America concept of “critical race theory”.  The announced write-in candidates Hannah Doyle and James Quinn are better on those issues than any of the people listed on the ballot for the three open  Davenport School Board positions and we hope you support them. A win by them would reverberate to great positive effect for conservatives around the state and around the country. We are now also told they are registered Republicans so there is no conflict for party voters.

What about the Freedom to Choose campaign supporting Hannah Doyle and James Quinn?

The pro-aborts do not own the term or concept “freedom to choose”

The pro-aborts have tried to market the term to their advantage as encompassing the freedom to destroy another human being in utero. To some extent it has been associated with them as if that is what they are truly about as regards abortion. But taking another human being’s rights away, taking away that human being’s choice to live is hardly a concept consistent with the term.  Pro-aborts have also marketed themselves as being just as much for someone’s choice not to kill their child in utero as in  . .  “oh we would never force someone to have an abortion . . .  we are just for choice in the matter . . . which means to take a pill . . . a saline injection . .  . to submit to an abortionists curette to cut up the baby inside.

Well isn’ that liberal of them. Of course they would  require you to pay for others to have it done which also belies their application of the term. Democrats are not really for the freedom to choose — never have been —  they are just pro-abortion.  Their position on COVID mandates proves it. You must wear a mask, take an injection . . .

And so the Freedom to Choose campaign supporting Hannah Doyle and James Quinn has nothing to do with the abortion issue — it is about a truer application of the concept —  insuring that parents have the right to have their children wear masks all day or part of the day or whenever and wherever OR NOT.  If parents want to send their kids to school and have them wear masks all day,  if they feel they are so effective, have at it. If a parent recognizes the uselessness and the harm — well they ought to be free to have their kids not wear masks and thus protect their health and learning capabilities.

Write-in candidates Hannah Doyle and James Quinn also oppose vaccine mandates at least as regards SARS-CoV-2,were it to be a requirement for Davenport School District students.  There is solid science and common sense behind write-in candidates Hannah Doyle and James Quinn  – no forced injections or pills against ones choice — that is what the Freedom to Choose campaign is about in the context of the Davenport School Board election.

For candidate responses to the River City Reader (RCR) questionnaire regarding sub rosa teaching of Social Emotional Learning (SEL) the cover name for Critical Race Theory (CRT) now supposedly outlawed in Iowa we also note that write-in candidates Hannah Doyle and James Quinn clearly oppose it.   Incumbent candidates Beck and Potts refused to respond to the RCR questionnaire regarding that matter.

Tomorrow hopefully more information on the Bettendorf candidates for School Board.  If we do not get to it  know that we support Melissa Zumdome and Analicia Gomes for their opposition to mask mandates, both are on the ballot.  Candidate (incumbent) Richard Lynch introduced a motion to require masks. It failed to get a second. He would seem to be as horrible on the matter as candidate Beck in Davenport.

0

0

Related reading – we fully endorse:

HALL: Iowans will find out in 24 hours how much legislators care about their rights, liberties and maintaining them

We implore readers to this minute contact their Iowa state legislators who are meeting this morning in a special session first intended to deal with redistricting.

Political observers we have read indicate that the plan on the table — the second iteration of the process — is likely to pass. The Republicans in charge need to move on promptly to deal with a critical matters that cannot wait –  employer mandates for COVID vaccines.

Legislators are networked and are well aware of the issue and the general consensus among Republicans and freedom loving people in support of freedom to work without misguided, useless as to disease prevention even harmful medical mandates.

Legislative approaches in other states exist to address the problem.  Iowa Republican legislators have had time to formulate an approach to effectively ban employer mandates to protect more citizen workers and to understand that health care workers also need protection from injection mandates. They have no excuse not to do their duty.

Below is a collection of synopsis of state regulations that have banned vaccine mandates by employers.  At this writing, we suspect the most encompassing approach might be something like what Montana appears to have done — simply amend Iowa’s  Chapter 216 Civil Rights code to include a prohibition on discrimination as to COVID-19 vaccine status, add it to the list of prohibited matters already present.

These synopsis via Beckers Hospital review here and here.

Florida: On April 2, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis said businesses are prohibited from requiring customers to verify a COVID-19 vaccination status or post-transmission recovery to gain access to the business. Effective Sept. 16, the state will give $5,000 fines to any public or private entity that requires proof of vaccination, News 4 Jax reported. Since asking for proof of vaccination is part of a vaccine mandate, some companies may pay millions of dollars in fines.

Indiana: On April 29, Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb signed a law prohibiting state or local governments from requiring anyone, including employees, to show proof of vaccination.

Montana: On May 7, Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte signed a bill that prohibits discrimination based on vaccination status. This includes prohibiting an employer or government entity to refuse employment to a person or to discriminate against a person in compensation or in a term, condition or privilege of employment based on the person’s vaccination status. Additionally, an individual may not be required to receive any vaccine whose use is allowed under an emergency use authorization or any vaccine undergoing safety trials.

Montana: An employer cannot discriminate against an employee based on their vaccination status. They cannot refuse employment or withhold wage increases based on having a COVID-19 vaccine. An individual cannot be required to get a vaccine that only has emergency use authorization or is undergoing safety trials.

Texas: Gov. Greg Abbott issued an executive order Oct. 11 banning any entity in the state, including private employers, from enforcing COVID-19 vaccine mandates. The order states that “no entity in Texas” can enforce vaccination against anyone, including an employee or consumer, who objects “for any reason of personal conscience, based on a religious belief, or for medical reasons, including prior recovery from COVID-19.”

Texas: In a bill that passed both chambers, employers are banned from refusing to hire, discharging or discriminating against an individual because the individual does not provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination status.Ohio: In a bill that has passed in both chambers, private and public entities are banned from requiring an individual to receive a vaccine that is not fully approved by the FDA. Unvaccinated staff members can’t be required to refrain from or engage in activities or precautions that differ from those who have received the vaccine.

Most critical at this writing is stopping all employer and business vaccine mandates.  Stopping Zuckerberg type election buying is also important, could be done quickly.

0

0

• Vote for Hannah Doyle and James Quinn as write-in candidates

The Davenport School Board (DCSD) implemented a mask mandate the day of the deadline to file to run for the three open positions. Adjacent community school districts have not initiated mask mandates*.

None of the DCSD candidates who are on the ballot adequately support that such mask mandates for school children have no solid basis in health science, indeed have serious health and pedagogical contra-indications and are an assault on parents and their children’s rights.  Because of that situation and it was too late to file  — two well-spoken individuals have stepped up and are running with an impressive effort behind them as write-in candidates — Hannah Doyle and James Quinn .

Surrounding school districts respect parents health concerns for their children and allow parents to choose to have their children wear masks — or not if health, well-being, socialization  and learning concerns indicate to parents their kids should not wear them.

Regardless of substantive studies that indicate that masks (as promulgated) do not work to prevent the spread of COVID among children (or the general population) and that children are at extremely low risk of contracting the virus or to have serious repercussions, were they to contract it, parents in “freedom to mc choose” school districts are free to have their kids wear masks in school every moment if they wish, —  inside — outside — in gym class — in language class — at lunch time in between bites at the same table as other kids — whenever and wherever they choose. Not so in Davenport public schools, kids and parents have no choice.

Freedom to choose school districts, higher performing by the way, are not so absurd as the DCSD School Board and the candidates on the printed ballot who support mask mandates.  and denial of parents and students choice.

Thankfully for children’s health and society there is an enthusiastic, well-informed and well-organized grassroots effort on behalf of two write-in candidates for the DCSD School Board — Hannah Doyle and James Quinn.

The effort is social media and internet oriented with printed material and yard signs focused on directing voters to such contact points.  More information about them and the write-in campaign behind them is available at https://www.thefreedomtochoose.org/#/

In this age of social media, write-in candidacies in many races can overcome the handicaps of not being on the ballot, particularly when allied interest groups  use their contacts repetitively to develop the necessary name ID, motivating issue association and provide the simple instructions on how to write in a preferred choice on the ballot.

Done with enthusiasm and the plea to have contacts amplify the message to their own lists (even if they overlap) write-in candidacies can overcome historic odds. When the campaign is focused on typically lower turnout off-year municipal and school board elections where the ballot candidates are not well known anyway and typically not well-financed the possibility for success is real. A win by them and their campaign, while an exercise of basic practical politics, would absolutely shock the municipal and school district establishments who rely on elitist newspaper endorsements, grift networks and unions, all typically liberal and with a we know best power fetish.

Key factors that offer the two Davenport School Board candidates Hannah Doyle and James Quinn a real possibility are their  focus on a motivating issue that also holds a broader defining importance useful to getting out voters.  That issue is their opposition to COVID related mandates for masking and COVID vaccinating of school age children. They are supported by the  “freedom to choose” campaign. Their opposition to mandates in support of parents and children is a likely stand-in in people’s minds for a host of heart-felt intellectually and culturally sound issues in the context of education.

On the flip side,  support for mandates, a denial of parental choice, is a stand-in for attitudinal holdings giving carte-blanche to the educational bureaucracy — like Virginia governor candidate Terry McAuliffe and his mimic here — DCSD incumbent Allison Beck who is on the ballot running for reelection.  Talk about “dog-whistles”, Beck’s campaign literature is dripping with jargon and undefined BS phrases that the leftist teacher union bosses and other education bureaucrats know means support for mandates (she was part of the board vote in support), their desire to trample parental rights and pedagogically failing liberal political correctness and inculcation of same into the schools.

Beck by the way also voted for the sale of Lincoln School for a ridiculous $30,000 — a scandal in itself in our judgement as either a high-handed good ol’ boy vote, or indicative of people who can’t do business math and have no concerns for taxpayers assets. In a rare act of good journalism the matter is detailed in a string of articles in the QC Times. However more true to form, the QC Times will no doubt endorse Beck as after all she is on the liberal PC team.  Because of a staggered elections process for school board members this is the first election since her votes to practically give away a valuable taxpayer asset this is the time to help remove her and send a message.

Three positions are open but one can vote for less – please at least write in two names in the write-in area of the Davenport School Board section on the ballot — Hannah Doyle and James Quinn.  Write their names on a slip of paper and carry it in with you to get the spelling correct.  Print their names separately on the lines available on the ballot.

Call, cajole, email, text, spread on social media, induce your family, friends and contacts   who live in the Davenport School District to do the same and to show up and vote this coming Tuesday November, 2nd .    Write in Hannah Doyle and James Quinn .  DCSD residents will have that race on their ballots others in other districts for this general election will not.  For questions on where to vote — go to the Scott County Auditor web site“Election Central”.

More posts and updates regarding this election to come.

+2

0

• Support the write-in candidates in the Davenport Community School Board (DCSB) election Hannah Doyle and James Quinn
• Concerned parents with better decision making skills than the incumbents they are running against
• Make Davenport an example

(This post corrected – sorry about earlier problems)

In the Davenport School Board race there are four people on the ballot along with write-in opportunities for superior candidates.  There are three open positions. We endorse the candidacies and the organized effort behind two write-in candidates whose success would send a crucial message to the bureaucrats that run the floundering if not foundering  Davenport public school system.  The message being that parents and “stake holders” as in taxpayers need to be answered to and that school board members are not there to serve the failed liberal educational establishment.

In a manner of speaking, many parents have been voting for months, pulling their kids out of the DCSD, sending their kids to other school districts as is allowed, private schools and home-schooling. But as is obvious from most of the statements (or lack thereof) by the candidates on the ballot on surveys by the teachers union, the River City Reader  and statements in the Quad City Times they haven’t a clue about what is motivating the declining enrollment in spite of the growth in population of the area the DCSD encompasses.

To varying degrees, a nuance here and there,  all of those on the ballot seem more oriented toward accommodating relationships between liberal teachers, political wokeness, and educational bureaucracy — the underlying assumption that they know best — and less so the needs of students, protecting the culture and concerns of parents.

While no doubt always concerned, two individuals have stepped forward after the proverbial straw that broke the camel’ back — re-institution of mask mandate by the DCSD by vote of the school board even though other districts (better performing we might add) thoroughly rejected the madness.  We will set forth more information relevant to the election, expanding this post later today but for now, in case you or people you know are voting early, please support these two write-in candidates:

0

0

• So if you invoke your rights in response to an accusation, invoking advice of council or other legal authority,  you must be guilty of the accusation or have something to hide 
• So sayeth Liz Cheney 
• Executive privilege is a separation of powers doctrine held since George Washington.    
• Just too much switch-hitt’n going on in Washington (photos of transitions  below)

So Liz Cheney, whom we hope will soon be retired as a congressperson from Wyoming , thinks that Steve Bannon  and Donald Trump must be guilty if they invoke executive privilege regarding a House subpoena which she supported supposedly focusing on events surrounding January 6th.  From The Washington Examiner:

Arguments made by Trump and Bannon that relevant information sought by the committee is protected by executive privilege, Cheney said, “appear to reveal one thing: They suggest that President Trump was personally involved in the planning and execution of Jan. 6, and this committee will get to the bottom of that.”

Hmmm . . . Remember when Democrats in Congress thought they smelled a rat or maybe just wanted to tie-up a Bush administration, go on a fishing expedition . . . whatever?  That would be both as regards the H.W. and G W. Bush administrations both of which by the way Liz Cheney’s dad worked for and who was as at the center of assertions of executive privilege controversies in both administrations. (links below).

Well nothing has changed with the propriety of asserting what is a separation of powers claim except for maybe Liz Cheney’s feelings about such matters and her transitioning  into a really nasty human being. So did now Congressperson Cheney express any reservations about assertions of executive privilege back then when her dad, to use her current vein of thought, hid behind executive privilege? By her standard her dad must have been guilty of something.

If somehow Trump or Bannon after they have left office asserting executive privilege is invalid by Cheney’s lights are Democrats then free to re-open or open up any matter they might want to and demand answers from Presidents, Vice Presidents and anyone they have spoken to?

Let’s grant that Bannon was not in an official position at the time of a conversation with President Trump.   Should that matter if Trump asserts that the conversation involved executive privilege, a privilege he has wide range to invoke invoke.  It seems a reasonable assertion given that Trump was President at the time and no doubt Bannon was considered perhaps an advisor or organizer regarding Trump’s appearance before the throng on January 6th.

Would it not obviate the separation of powers if a politicized House can do an end run and demand say e-mails between Trump and someone and Trump by rights refuses but the House tries to intimidate the someone who is disinclined to speak to them and who has been advised by Trump’s attorney’s to not comply as Bannon has because executive privilege pertains.

The Justice Department through the FBI has already indicated they have found no evidence of a conspiracy. If the Democrats seriously think they have something then they can try and get the Justice Department to show probable cause, but in this world of malicious political prosecution, pretext inquiries etc, an intensely partisan political body ought not to have kangaroo court powers.         R Mall

/////

Links regarding recent assertions of executive privilege  including as regards Vice President Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney’s father.

https://sgp.fas.org/bush/cogr-execpriv.pdf

https://lawliberty.org/the-constitution-and-executive-privilege/

When Presidents Invoke Executive Privilege.

Photos after transitions:

0

0

The chant is truly phenomenal. A sign of defiance, resilience, and hope really — that people do see through this stain on America. Keep hope alive. Turn it into an everyday greeting… right up there with ~~ Nice weather we’ve been having . . . let’s go Brandon.

Overwhelmingly intrusive government … impeachable dereliction of duty regarding our borders . . .  policies that lead to ending national sovereignty and to one-world government … appeasement of tyrannical regimes . . .  devastating economic and cultural policies — it is a  Destroy America First (DAF) agenda that describes Joe Biden’s  a.k.a. “Brandon’s” pretend presidency.

Joe Biden is not a nice man and never was. While he is intellectually vacuous his reptilian brain maintains his nasty vindictive ways.  Policies are dictated by his handlers who must keep a very short leash on Biden only allowing him to venture forth when in tow and only into very controlled environments there to be pet by the press. He is an empty vessel these Marxists pour policy into.  The chant “Let’s go Brandon” is of course code for contempt for Joe Biden and the horse he rode in on, meaning the Democrat Party and his handlers.   Use it at every opportunity.

+1

0

• It just has not been long enough since Grassley issued some serious calumny aimed at Trump (and by inference his supporters so many thousands of whom were at last Saturday’s rally in Des Moines) regarding events circa January 6th 2021
• Trump is not the best at picking teammates

Donald Trump’s association with Chuck Grassley at Trump’s Save America rally last Saturday in Des Moines was a little too soon in my judgment, given as someone who came to be a Trump admirer, ofttimes champion but who is not necessarily a Trump supporter in the Iowa caucuses IF a bold capable electable Save America oriented alternative is possible.  Such a candidate should be looked at for political strengths and weaknesses including any benefit to useless drama (good drama is motivational) when Trump allows himself to become the issue rather than Democrats and their warped policies. Trump is very important to Saving America but good CEOs realize when it is not the best to have themselves as the point man even when Democrats are imploding. Personally I think Trump’s magnanimous endorsement is enough for the next President.

It is likely more than enough for Chuck Grassley who would be odds-on favorite to win the Republican nomination and likely the Senate race again even without it, given the money and name ID he has and his inherent ability to counter his age issue.  The only thing that Grassley could do to screw things up for himself would be to be perceived as being a Washington creature, weak even pathetic in the face of extraordinary circumstances and disdainful of Trump and his supporters —  all of which he has managed to do — but which Trump has now saved him from.

My view is that there has not been enough water under the bridge and too few if any “clarifications” issued by Grassley to take the edge off both the irony and the facileness of Grassley’s  appearance on the stage for Trump to give him his blessing after the number Grassley did on Trump (and Trump supporters) post-election.  That number included spreading gross distortion of Trump’s words which also impugned his supporters,  the frailty he showed toward vibrant protest and especially the unjust finality he insisted on regarding an election fraught with all manner of clear illegalities, profound uninvestigated anomalies, judicial charades and legislative unconstitutionalities that defrauded Republicans and the nation.

But there was Senate reelection hopeful Chuck Grassley on the stage with Trump at the Iowa State Fairgrounds accepting Trump’s support.  The irony, even for politics, was not lost on some conservative pundits and chortled over by dominant liberal media in the state and elsewhere. The chortle hiding the choke they felt knowing any chance of unseating Grassley was likely over.

Now perhaps this is but a truism in management of large organizations whose leader is brought in with the goal of a major shake-up —  but Trump’s biggest impediment to even greater success for his presidency related to his personnel picks, for campaign positions and presidential staff,  department heads and his unnecessary alignments. Fortunately for the country Trump’s solid sincere capable picks in many positions outperformed the clunkers, ingrates, grifters, courtiers, incompetents, cowards, weak-hitters, underminers, and traitors he saddled himself with, unschooled in the ways of Washington as he was.

Whatever the draw or blindness Trump has toward political opportunists whose loyalty is thin at best, whose understanding of Trump’s persona and the country’s tenor is weak, is regrettable. Grassley fits in that opportunist category.

How can I say that about someone with Grassley’s  reputation? Because Grassley pretty much admitted as much, as quoted in the Des Moines Register, after declining the opportunity to revise and extend his remarks about Trump post election.

“I was born at night, but not last night,” he said from the stage. “So if I didn’t accept the endorsement of a person that’s got 91% of the Republican voters in Iowa, I wouldn’t be too smart. I’m smart enough to accept that endorsement.”

Grassley’s admission, combined with his failure (along with much of the Iowa GOP weak-hitter establishment) to repudiate his own comments about January 6 related to Trump and his supporters —  his weakness as regards constitutional and political remedies to election fraud resulting in such an easy walk for people intent on essentially ending the republic and our national sovereignty — and his further facilitation of that “reset”with a key vote supporting parliamentary maneuvers on an unnecessarily gargantuan spending bill opposed by most of the GOP caucus with the excuse of  “regular order’ (as if such is binding in any way and especially when regular order means nothing to Marxist revolutionaries) — combine to make Trump’s endorsement of Grassley inappropriate without more from good ol’ Chuck.

I am not sure if Trump is being magnanimous, or is being given pathetic “you must do this now” advice — but without more from Grassley Trump’s endorsement suggests insincerity about his own statements . . .  as if it is OK to say anything / do anything  — it doesn’t matter — its just politics. It creates a tendency to deflate interest in defending Trump if he rewards his accusers and fraud deniers.

No politician is perfect but our country is at more risk today because Chuck Grassley and  “conservatives” like him acted as the DC establishment wanted. The Grassley types cannot claim to be watchdogs of the republic when they hardly barked at the breaking and entering of our election processes and “moved on” to hump the leg of a table set to feed those malcontents.  All of it for the calm of a few scraps from the table for their state.

Grassley’s comments days and weeks after the January 6th rally contained untruths and constituted reckless disregard because the truth was readily available about Trump’s speech — all one had to do was listen to a recording or read a transcript to clearly see there was no incitement of riot – just the opposite. Trump was in no way guilty of anything out of bounds expressing his views about the legitimacy of the election. He called for a peaceful demonstration.

Further, Grassley engaged in reckless and pathetic pearl-clutching elitist beltway rhetoric about some regrettable excesses displayed by a few when a balanced appraisal should have emphasized that it was an overwhelmingly peaceful rally and demonstration and the excesses were just that.

The ill-advised (not by Trump but perhaps by the FBI) people that entered the Capitol buildings, many without objection by police as there is video showing them being ushered in,  had no serious characteristic of an insurrection.  Any student of history or observer of current events knowing that police contend with far worse than exhibited that day every week by ANTIFA and BLM.  The characterization of even the most aggressive protestors that day, including their regrettable vandalism and trespass, as an insurrection engages in something worse in my judgment —  calumny about a cause and cheap grandstanding.

Further still, with reckless disregard Grassley implicated deaths coincidental to the rally (possible at any large protest rally of tens of thousands of people) as intrinsic to Trump’s comments. Grassley to this day that I am aware of has failed to repudiate his comments and failed to correct that the only death that day with actionable culpability was at the hands of one of Grassley’s pretorian guards who ought to be charged with a serious species of criminal negligence and wrongful death having shot an unarmed diminutive female of no threat to himself while also hazarding his own comrades in arms.

Trump does not need Grassley’s support in Iowa. He is more popular than Grassley among Republicans. Any further bad-mouthing by Grassley of Trump would only hurt Grassley, Grassley knows that, seeing himself below Trump and Governor Reynolds in job approval numbers as well. The gain is primarily to Grassley who is (at least was) faced with a credible primary challenge made so in part by Grassley’s swamp fever.

Trump’s untimely endorsement of Grassley could undermine enthusiasm for Trump from Republican activists who were insulted by inference by Grassley’s comments and press releases and dismayed with Grassley’s votes facilitating Marxists.  It is true that Grassley was a champ pursuing the Russia hoax used against Trump,  and maybe that is why Trump endorsed him. However there is an even bigger hoax — a hoax that Grassley has helped perpetuate  — because after all Trump won in spite of the Russia hoax. The hoaxes that Grassley helps perpetuate include that concerns about the 2020 election reflect a hoax — the hoax that Trump inspired an insurrection —  the hoax that there was an insurrection — the hoax that five people lost their lives because of a political rally and protest January 6th —  the hoax that Iowa would not get money for roads but for Grassley’s vote to facilitate Marxist spending bills . . .                                        R Mall

Related reading

The January 6 Insurrection Hoax.

0

0

CRITICAL QUESTIONS V’PAC READERS ARE BEST INFORMED TO ANSWER:

1- Who, in your opinion, is the worst U.S. Attorney  General in modern history?:
a) Eric Holder
b) Jeff Sessions
c) William Barr
d) Merrick Garland

2- Will the commission President Joey appointed recommend that the US Supreme Court not be expanded so that he may appoint 4 additional liberal justices?

3- (With the possible exception of Fox’s Doocy) does the news media use child actors to attend ‘Pjen’ Psaki’s press conferences?

4- Which sub-Cabinet post do you think President Joey should consider Dave Loebsack for?:

a) Aide To Vice President Harris in charge of child actor recruitment?
b) Assistant to Sec. of Education in charge of School Board protection?
c) Undersecretary of HHS for Sanger Eugenics  and taxpayer abortion funding?
d) Your suggestion

5- Would illegal immigration pose a threat to US security if the US border were not closed?

6- Is the ’Scranton Scrapper’ preparing to issue a “Baby Aspirin Mandate” to halt a heart attack “epidemic” in US?

7- Have the descendants of Corn Pop demanded reparations for the pain ‘Joey’ has caused the family by his bullying?

8- Will Hunter Biden be named to head the DEA or Special Envoy to China?

9) In your view, has the Quad City Times done enough to support “Brandon’s” “Build Back Better” spending?

Give Us Your Opinion.  Readers are also invited to  submit their “critical questions”        dlh

0

0

And, rumor has it, they’ll present, for students’ viewing pleasure, the late term abortion of a Black’ fetus’…Live, In The Ballroom!

(That’s just a rumor, ya understand? After all…it is a ‘Catholic’ University…just like ‘Brandon’ and Nancy are ‘devout’ Catholics)

0

0