All of the top Republican contenders are now saying Trump lost.
As a political calculation DeSantis (who we favor for the nomination at this time as events unfold) saying Trump lost was in our judgement unnecessary and impolitic especially given that 68% of Republicans believe with plenty of evidence including their own eyes (D’Souza videos and book and more recent revelations) that Biden “won” the 2020 by fraud.
We wish DeSantis would have responded with something like our basic contention about the election, a rendition of which follows in italics below. Keep in mind any statement at this stage ought to be intended for Republican voters even if with some artful vagaries but with a definitive end to the discussion.
in retrospect it is apparent that the election was fraught with illegalities and appearance of illegalities, sloppy or non existent signature voter verification processes, chain of custody issues, incongruous data dumps and anomalies, eye witness testimony to be investigated, and more, sufficient to justify pausing the election certification in relevant states pursuant to emergency judicial hearings on the evidence combined with forensic audits if necessary, prior to the final declaration of a winner in those states. That was not done and the republic would have been better served had political leadership insisted on it, Democrat and Republican together. But that ship has sailed. Returning to practical politics he might have gone on to say . . . Regardless, at this point we are faced with the destruction wrought by the Biden Crime Family presidency and the question now is who is the best candidate to go forward unencumbered who can win in November and restore America’s economy, protect the border, deal with China from a position of strength, and reduce overreaching government as I have done in my state . . .
But DeSantis didn’t ask us nor any of the others and “the ship has sailed” for all of them although maybe DeSantis has the most room to revise and extended his remarks. Here is what we have so far regarding quotes about election 2020 from the most notable contenders. They are pulled from links in a WaPo article in no particular order:
Baier asked Haley during their interview whether she believed the 2020 election results were legitimate. “Do I think Joe Biden is the legitimate president?” she said. “Yes. He’s a bad one at that.”
“I do not believe the election was stolen,” Scott said in response to a question at a town hall event here. “There was cheating, but was the election stolen? There’s a difference. I think [in] every election there’s cheating.”
It is noteworthy that here Christie is criticizing DeSantis for being reticent about definitively saying Biden won
CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, look, I still don’t think he (DeSantis) answered it. Right? He lost. Well, we all know that, as a matter of law, he lost the election. Right? The deeper question and the one that I think he is dodging is, do you believe it was a full and fair election? That’s really the question. And with respect to the interviewer, I think she let him off the hook. I mean, in the end, did he lose? Of course, he lost, and I believe he lost because he lost in a full and fair election.
Also noteworthy is that Ramaswamy is said to be the number two pick of many Trump supporters
Vivek Ramaswamy, It was a dark day for democracy. The loser of the last election refused to concede the race, claimed the election was stolen, raised hundreds of millions of dollars from loyal supporters, and is considering running for executive office again. I’m referring, of course, to Donald Trump.
“First of all, I don’t believe the election was stolen, and I respect the results,”
We were initially chagrinned, and still are to an extent, hearing DeSantis’ unprepared, clumsy kind of rambling comments about the legitimacy of the 2020 election. Trump voters never got their day in court and DeSantis should realize that many of them perceive the nomination and general election as their chance to make the case. Not understanding and accommodating that sentiment was why we say his response was a missed opportunity and does not help his chances.
That said, it does not seem that any of the Republican candidates except Christie want to spend their time fighting 2020 (Christie is in tune with praising the result) when it is most important to deal with 2024. And with what is coming out about the Biden Crime Family, Biden is well on his way to delegitimizing himself.
We understand that DeSantis may be thinking that saying that 2020 was rigged or acknowledging the evidence of rigging and the appropriateness of a timely, even if emergency, process to verify evidence etc, which was never entertained by the system, would be to say Trump deserves election this time around. But putatively wronged in 2020 does not make Trump the best candidate in 2024. There were many internal Trump administration dynamics that were problematic then and we are not confident have been resolved.
But back to the current situation.
Assuming the enemy, violating the rules of war, cheated in earnest and blockaded and later severely damaged Battleship Trump — that does not make Battleship Trump the best vessel to lead the next battle. However it is reason to authenticate the matter with deliberate speed and if “war criminals” are found send them to jail. But the decisive 2024 battle needs to be addressed first. Everything needs to be about winning in 2024. Getting to the bottom of 2020 is actually secondary given the state of emergency. Fighting the last war is not the best strategy.
We are not convinced Trump is the best candidate to win in 2024 or even to get to the bottom of 2020. He does not have an unassailable record, seriously so in several areas we have elaborated on in other posts.
Trump supporters insist he has learned a lot. OK, and others can’t learn from his mistakes or what he was up against? We are not convinced Trump has learned enough positive until he is drawn out on the various subjects and that requires debating others. And keep in mind ours is not properly a government entirely of executive orders.
We need the best person who can win and smoothly perform the extensive governmental house cleaning that needs to happen. We saw that the star of The Apprentice is a lousy personnel chief. But we have not seen adequate evidence he has learned thoroughly enough not to be his own worst enemy.
We believe Governor DeSantis has in the crucible of Florida exhibited far more acumen in all that is necessary to successfully do what needs to be done.
Trump double taps his foot
Trump, while a good man otherwise, has exhibited unbecoming arrogance and petulance on two matters that deserve to be in the first case onerous and in the second disqualifying for Republicans wanting a ballot position.
First off — not debating the other candidates should be treated as an affront to Republicans. Trump is toying with not doing so. His expressed attitude is to the effect ~~ Why should I when I am so far ahead~~. Our response is that: because half the party is not in your corner for the nomination and failing to debate will not improve your standing with them and is an insult to the party and its functions. I think it smacks of Biden hiding in the basement avoiding real confrontation even if Trump does get out and give basically canned rallies.
Furthermore Biden may not be the actual Dem nominee and we need to see who performs the best with today’s issues and what Trump has learned. Which candidate is more incisive on the attack against what the Democrats have done and expressing what he or she will do.
The clincher as to disqualifying someone for the party nomination as far as we are concerned is in refusing to pledge to support the nominee. If we remember correctly Trump played that game some back in 2016 although he did sign. He has not signed a pledge as yet. Toying the issue was unbecoming then but far worse now.
He could sign the pledge and be viable and still not debate, the latter stupid but not formally disqualifying in and of itself.
With regard to Trumps refusal to sign a pledge one must ask, who the heck does Trump think has any chance of winning the Republican nomination, that is so bad compared to a Democrat? Even Chris Christy or Asa Hutchinson for that matter, both impossible wins, would be better than any Democrat.
Even publicly toying with the idea tears it for us as it is insulting to the majority of Republicans. Does Trump think the Republican apparat has the inclination and will actually fix the results, extending from his handpicked RNC Chair? The same apparat that in state after state organized to benefit all Republican candidates. How might that be done? Our message to Trump is we are not cheating Democrats so don’t imply it while pleading to be the party’s standard bearer. With his continuing demurral it seems he just wants to breed resentment and hurt party unity. He is the only candidate who has not signed the pledge.
Refusing or being coy about not supporting the nominee if it does not go your way is the attitude ~~ I’ve been scorned (never mind that Trump as a matter of course in his 8 years as a politician unfairly scorns others) . . . and now I will take my ball home and the hell with the country~~.
To fulfill such a pledge he does not have to do anything other than say something to the effect ~~ I hope everyone votes for the Republican nominee ~~ and not act against that.
Or the refusal is an utter ego trip, used as a veiled threat to run as a third party candidate. There is no third party on the ballot in all the states that he could win with. There is no opportunity for any more to get on the ballot. It is politically insane. Even toying with the idea given the threat Democrats pose precludes Trump as thinking straight or being in line with the best interests of the country. It is rightly disqualifying.
Eaton Davenport plant on Hickory Grove Road. Rainbow, flag to lower right has been up for weeks beyond ‘pride’ month. Over the years the plant has changed hands from Bendix, to Litton , to Cobham to Eaton with passing defense contract buyouts.
It seems flying a “rainbow flag” for months does not make Eaton inclusive, just a harborage for ES&G management types intent on being as superficial and creepily offensive to orthodox believers as possible.
A properly functioning union there might say something on behalf of their members who find the implications of going to work under such a flag offensive such that doing so might infer agreement with the political movement claiming the flag. That is not something to be proud of.
Such a union might grieve that differences in opinion from workers are stifled while corporate management blatantly foists theirs.
As we suggest below, Eaton’s symbolization is selective, argumentative, and not tolerant of cultural diversity. (more commentary follows the pictoral depictions of Eaton’s flag hypocrisy).
Do any Muslims work for Eaton? How do they or would they feel about going to work each day for a company so insensitive, so in your face as you enter the company’s front office portico that champions not merely a focused culturally unsettled cause in all its manifestations, but a celebration of a sexual license their religious teachings find abhorrent? One that for example insists on “drag story hour” for children promoted in local publicly funded institutions where you see the same flag.
The “rainbow flag” is the recognized in-your-face symbol of not merely “gay” tolerance, the flag of the United States and its laws represents that, but a political movement. We will consider any rebuttals or demurrals from the company as regards that point as authentic when they hoist for example, some of the following flags as prominently and for the same extended periods of time.
Here are some flags that represent a cause or “constituencies” that many of their employees may well hold dear. When do these flags and movements get their weeks in the sun at Eaton?
Just wondering why they have not run this one up the pole. Do Black lives not matter at Eaton?
The Tawheed flag commonly used to represent Islam. Certainly Muslims have experienced discrimination in this country. Where is Eaton’s sense of fairness?
Or this Juneteenth Flag. But then maybe they did. If not it is unforgivable
This lovely batch of sloganeering touches a number of leftist politically correct bases. Why “no human is illegal” might even attract Eaton some unlawful non-citizens. If not to work at the plant but perhaps to care for the management elite’s lawns
Sheesh, where’s the love. Why not fly this thin blue “police, firefighter, soldier” flag.
The not common enough (less than the rainbow flag) thin blue line flag supporting police service is missing in action at Eaton!
Christian symbol. We will bet this flag will never be flown at Eaton. Way too controversial.
Vegan Flag. We suspect they have a LOT of vegans working there in management. But darn it there is not one vegan restaurant in the west end.Maybe flying this would help the Door Dash folks know what door to deliver the tofu delicacies.
Well they are making a lot of money off that war thing in Ukraine so maybe Eaton should show how brave and in your face they can be on behalf of Ukraine now that they have exited Russia
Air Force Flag. Now for such a good customer flying this flag would seem apropos. But we guess Eaton has decided there is “no room on the pole” for supporting one of its best customers
Now for this one — the rumor is Eaton is just shopping for a taller pole. They do a lot of business there and have one or more plants. Deployed properly this flag could really earn them some “international’ creds. The left that Eaton management caters to would not object. Now Red China would never entertain the rainbow flag but Eaton is happy to do business with them while Xe laughs as the whole rainbow thing hurts this country’s military readiness.
The above selections are just a sampling of the flags of a variety of causes or viewpoints some of which are certainly less controversial than the gay “rights” rainbow flag. Eaton does not bother with flying those flags. But understand well, we agree and support that a company is not obligated to.
But by prominently displaying a rainbow flag, with its loaded symbolization, and not providing a similar or alternative venue for a competing viewpoint is discrimination. Private employers are allowed to do that. We do not object overall to that right but we do believe Eaton shows lack of judgement and evenhandedness because getting involved in the political culture wars forces at least some workers to cringe and even consider the company hostile to their religious beliefs. We freely admit to our own prejudices that we would applaud companies supportive of traditional values along the lines of some of the “flags” and movements identified above.
All that said, perhaps there are some elements of this ES&G crapola that might be actionable by employees. Consider:
In order to hold their jobs at Eaton it requires some employees to deal with the pall cast over them of a noxious philosophy at odds with their religious upbringing. Flying such a flag is a culturally provocative political statement because of its recognized associations and manifestations in public policy which an employee may find anathema.
Are Eaton employees allowed an accommodation to compensate for the sacriligious insult dealt them embodied in such a flag and political movement? If the flag is considered merely passive are employees allowed the ability to “passively” disagree on sight by showing their religious views either on another flagpole equally prominent or to wear a garment, hat, or pin showing their disagreement with the rainbow propaganda?
As far as we know they are not. Speaking up about such things is rare and is what management counts on while preening for kudos from the left. Plus they are protected in their speech and employees are not.
Evenhandedness in the flag propaganda are not accommodated as far as we can tell in passing by their facility. Eaton appears to be rigid and non-accommodating to alternative religious and philosophical beliefs based on the history of its flag policy.
Perhaps these “safe” workplace environments “under the rainbow” claimed by ESG reprobates are for example only for transgenders and not straight women who are uncomfortable and understandably might not feel safe with a biological man in the bathroom. Castigating the fear does not overwhelm the cultural fact. Now if all bathrooms at Eaton are single use facilities with a lock and no gang dressing areas then that criticism is abated but not the issue of propagandizing employees (the rainbow flag).
To turn the supposed justification coin on Eaton: in spite of their pretense the Eaton propagandistic flag policies reflecting the religion of secularization can cause people to hide their true selves less they be ostracized in various ways by management. Certainly for many the fear of speaking up pertains. It seems that with such companies a man who believes he is a woman is free to flaunt his feelings and demonstrate through garb those feelings, which Eaton management will ignore or accommodate, but orthodox Christian or Muslim views to the contrary in this country they will not.
Again management is free to impose its blatant or subtle anti-religious propaganda on campus, and as corporate policy, to deny such speech to others on campus, cultural denigration be damned. And in all this it should be well understood that we are not advocating discrimination in hiring or firing, only the propagandizing without recourse of cultural matters that companies should leave to the political process lest they be politicized and reap that whirlwind. We think it stupid for companies to get on the ESG bandwagon often against interests and join the culture wars (witness Bud Light).
Eaton management is not brave. If any virtue entered into it they would be more interested in being even-handed and not propagandize against or limit passive orthodox Christian expression as they do. But by the standards they pretend to exhibit here they are cowards elsewhere. Try hoisting that flag outside their property and plants in Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Kenya, China. Here they get to attend fine cocktail parties and extol their participation in an agenda of cultural denigration, in Muslim world they would likely have it torn down as an offense and be the scene of protests.
There is more than enough expression of tolerance in the colors of the flag of the United States.
So while we recognize the limited legal right for the company to engage in propagandizing we mostly object to the arbitrary ESG assholes fighting the culture wars on behalf of the left.
So the question arises whutareyagunnadoaboutit.
You mean besides vent?
We would suggest do what the left would do. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”* In doing that consult a labor law attorney and check on the extent of the protected right in the workplace to organize union and non-union members as to labor and workplace conditions which might include wearing organizing paraphernalia.
For example perhaps a labor organizing pin or perhaps t-shirt focused on ending a certain workplace condition. We believe the pin is “allowed” under the law to at least obliquely send a message beyond the particular objection. Check with a labor law attorney but advocacy of a work policy accommodation would seem to be a protected right under labor law. An example might be a pin that encourages adoption of a workplace accommodation right by the company and or union or an end to objectionable practices by either.
We believe such paraphernalia can contain a message or refer people to a fuller understanding of the arguments along with the call for even-handed treatment. An action item such as inviting them to sign a petition to management and or the union is a labor organizing feature regarding workplace policies and issues.
Check on the parameters but it seems to us the legal protection of advocacy regarding a work-place condition does not require official union acceptance or that the messaging come from a union member. Indeed in this case a union could be a part of the problem given their notorious encompassing of all things Democrat Party.
It is our understanding that a pin with a union label or indicia that also has a candidate image or logo is protected. So politics is not an excuse for forbidding such advocacy. Associate the protest in terms of and aligned with workers rights. The official union does not have to endorse or agree. It may well be that neither management or the union can stop such advocacy. Assuming that right, if any intimidation or retaliation ensues then sue them.
The idea may take years to settle into something workable but in the meantime orthodox believers can make their point, demonstrate resistance to management or union nostrums, and evangelize the reasoning. Ideally a union should embrace the matter but don’t hold your breath.
These pins and an accompanying organizational effort are mockups that might apply to a company that makes it a point to prominently fly a rainbow flag while denying workers the right to prominently symbolize their own belief. Other possibilities — better phraseology, designs, etc. no doubt abound.
SUPPORT OHIO’s 60% CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
HELP A GROUP HELPING THE GOOD FIGHT – DETAILS BELOW
Ohio has a special election ballot question for voters on August 8. The proposal will require any amendment be passed by 60% of the electorate instead of the the current 50%. For constitutional questions that seems eminently reasonable.
The interest of conservatives in protecting constitutional freedoms against well financed assaults on culture by leftists is manifest. While this question for many readers seems another state’s problem, those trying to protect the low threshold are liberals well financed by out of state interests intending to use the low threshold for their liberal power plays using unions, NGO’s, campus agitators, knee jerk Democrats, legacy and social media avenues virtually owned by them.
So given liberals current demeanor — distain for what should be supermajority protections for basic rights the appropriateness of helping constitutionalists in Ohio help prevent such assaults is important. A 50% constitution does not seem like much of a constitution or protection for basic rights.*
The effort is likely to be fought within a low turnout electorate. Churches can properly play a critical roll in influencing such ballot questions. The communication set forth below is from an effective organization focused on turnout among Catholics. However because the interest is non-secular we hope you will consider helping them help get the 60% proposal passed by kicking in $20 or more (follow the active links). If you know of another organization doing allied work there by all means give to them. We happen to be on this groups e-mail list. Time is of the essence.
Dear Roger,
It’s the final stretch.
Ohio’s August 8 vote on Issue 1 is now only about a week away…
… and we need to reach every Catholic voter we possibly can for the “yes” votes to win.
Here’s why your team at CatholicVote has been working day and night for weeks to secure a “yes” vote on Issue 1:
Democrats have already added an amendment to the ballot in November that would enshrine abortion with virtually no limitations as a “right” in Ohio’s constitution.
But by voting “yes” on Issue 1, Ohioans can raise the threshold for that amendment and others like it from a simple majority (50 +1) to 60%.
I’ll be honest: Giant national groups like Planned Parenthood and the ACLU have been hard at work – spreading deceptive messages about Issue 1 and convincing Ohio voters that it doesn’t matter, or even that a “yes” vote will undermine their rights.
100% lies.
Unfortunately, their efforts appear to be working. Planned Parenthood has pledged over $35 million in this campaign – and, no surprise, already reports over $4 million in donations… from California.
With just a few days left, we need to reach every Catholic voter in Ohio and set the record straight:
A “yes” vote on Issue 1 is a vote to reclaim Ohio’s constitution, protect Ohioan’s rights, and defend the unborn from this massive campaign of deception from out-of-state Big Abortion groups.
Again: abortion is already on the November 2023 ballot.
We need Ohio to vote “Yes” on Issue 1 on August 8.
Will you help us reach Catholics in Ohio?
Brian
P.S. Do you live in Ohio? You don’t have to wait until August 8 to vote “Yes” on Issue 1. Here’s our easy guide on how to vote early. Check it out.
P.P.S. The special election is expected to have very low turnout – so every pro-life Catholic we get to the polls will have that much more power to defend unborn children.
If we can reach Catholic voters with the truth – then we can win! Will you help?
Paid for by CatholicVote Ohio.
Update your email preferences or unsubscribe here.
CATHOLICVOTE | PO Box 3310 | Carmel, IN 46082 | (317) 669-6127
* Should the 60% proposal fail it will invite conservatives to respond in kind with amendment after amendment proposal as that is what liberals are asking for. It is really not a good way to run a state.
The Biden clan scandal in about more than Humper Biden — it is about weaponized Democrat control of media and institutions. Here is a collection of evocative cartoons from Townhall media:
The Brownstone Institute published the following article by C.J. Baker, M.D. (who) is an internal medicine physician with a quarter century in clinical practice. He has held numerous academic medical appointments, and his work has appeared in many journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine. From 2012 to 2018 he was Clinical Associate Professor of Medical Humanities and Bioethics at the University of Rochester.
The publication offers this commentary under a creative license grant and is set forth below. The article is available at the Brownstone site by linking here. We find much to recommend in the article. Readers can find out more about the Brownstone Institute by linking here. Graphic is a VeritasPAC. com meme, not part of the article.
By Clayton J. Baker, MD writing at Brownstone Institute:
The uncritical, blind faith in vaccines is the preeminent sacred cow of modern medicine. (It happens to be its preeminent cash cow as well.) It is a quasi-religious, dogmatic article of conviction, rather than a sound scientific theory or an empirically-based clinical precept.
Vaccines have been controversial since their introduction centuries ago. Only in very recent history has there been a rigidly enforced orthodoxy of belief within the medical establishment that vaccines must be unanimously regarded as “safe and effective,” no questions asked.
Even more recent is the practice of smearing and labeling anyone questioning this doctrine as a heretic: an “anti-vaxxer.” In fact, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the earliest known use of that now-ubiquitous epithet was only in 2001.
Religious faith has tremendous potential for good in society, but when it is misrepresented as science, its track record is miserable and deadly. “Safe and effective” is not scientific shorthand, or even an advertising slogan; it is a mantra. “Anti-vaxxer” is not a category of person, it is a charge of heresy. And just as vaccine critics are heretics, so the high priests of vaccines, the Faucis of the world, the people who in their own words “represent science,” are fanatics.
Does that really sound like science to you? Galileo, Semmelweis, and a few others might disagree.
Any honest person who lived through the COVID-19 era in the United States will acknowledge that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) with its lengthy “alphabet soup” of agencies (CDC, NIH (with its NIAID), FDA (with its CBER), etc., etc.), promoted and repeated the “safe and effective” mantra regarding the COVID-19 vaccines throughout an era of intense public fear.
Any honest person will also acknowledge that the mainstream media avidly repeated and amplified the “safe and effective” mantra and stoked the fear, all while ruthlessly attacking anyone questioning that same dogma, labeling them “anti-vaxxers,” or sometimes even “murderers.”
Little to no mention was made – or allowed – of the gigantic financial incentives and other entanglements these powerful entities have with the vaccine manufacturers, nor the trillions of dollars involved.
Religious dogmas, especially those relentlessly inculcated by powerful forces under extreme conditions, are hard to break free from.
To readers who may know people caught in the rigid, dogmatic belief in the infallibility of vaccines, I offer the following 10 sentences.
Share them with friends, family, and colleagues who cannot seem to reconsider vaccine dogma, especially those with an uncritical view of the current vaccine schedules. Ask them to carefully read each of the 10 sentences below, one at a time, and ask themselves: does this sentence seem true or false to me? If it seems false, on what basis do I think it is false? Then move on to the next one and do the same.
(Some of the sentences are complex, but I am confident an intelligent layperson can understand them all.)
When they are finished with all 10 sentences, encourage your friends to ask themselves:
Do they truly believe that every child in the United States should receive 20 or more different vaccines before age 18?
Should vaccines ever be mandated?
Shouldn’t we, as an educated, free society, systematically review the official vaccine recommendations, and, just as we would do with Grandma’s overflowing pill box, reduce them to the truly necessary minimum?
Shouldn’t we reassert the autonomy of patients over their own bodies?
Here is the trouble with vaccines, in 10 sentences:
Like “antibiotics,” “vaccines” are a large and diverse class of medicines, and as with all large classes of medicines, different products in the class work by different mechanisms, some being quite effective while others are ineffective, some being reasonably safe for appropriate human use while others are fraught with side effects and toxicities, and therefore to assume that any large class of medicines – including vaccines – is categorically “safe and effective,” is naïve, illogical, false, and dangerous.
While the full extent of vaccine toxicity is undetermined, it is a historical fact that numerous vaccines have been proven to be highly toxic and even deadly to patients, via multiple pathophysiological mechanisms, including: a) direct contamination of the vaccine (e.g. the Cutter Incident), b) disease caused by unintended, pathological immune response to the vaccine (e.g. Guillain–Barré syndrome caused by the swine flu vaccine), c) unintended contraction and/or transmission of the disease the vaccine was designed to prevent, caused by the vaccine itself (e.g. the current oral polio vaccine), and d) vaccine toxicity of unknown or uncertain cause (e.g. intestinal intussusception with the rotavirus vaccine, and fatal blood clots with the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine).
In fact, the known toxicity of vaccines is so well-established that a Federal law – the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) was passed to specifically exempt vaccine manufacturers from product liability, based on the legal principle that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” products.
Since the 1986 NCVIA act protecting vaccine manufacturers from liability, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of vaccines on the market, as well as the number of vaccines added to the CDC vaccine schedules, with the number of vaccines on the CDC Child and Adolescent schedule rising from 7 in 1986 to 21 in 2023.
Of the 21 vaccines on the 2023 CDC Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule, only a small minority (e.g. measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, and HiB) are capable of providing genuine herd immunity, a fact that negates the common, population-based arguments for mandating the other vaccines, which comprise the sizable majority of the vaccines on the schedule.
The pharmaceutical industry has established an almost unimaginable degree of media control, institutional influence, and regulatory capture, via its funding of other entities, as it is a) the largest industry lobby in Washington, DC, b) the second largest industry in TV advertising, c) a major source of personal revenue for high-level HHS “alphabet soup” agency bureaucrats, many of whom hold patent and royalty rights on pharmaceutical products, d) a major funder of influential physician organizations (e.g. the American Academy of Pediatrics and prominent medical journals, and e) involved in payment-based incentivization of practicing physicians, who frequently receive monetary bonuses for high rates of vaccination in their patient panels.
The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were developed and administered to the public a) much faster and with much less testing than any other vaccines on the market, b) under Emergency Use Authorization, c) utilizing a technological platform that had never seen commercial use before, and, despite generating reports of vaccine-related deaths and serious adverse events at much higher rates than traditional vaccines, and despite the fact that they have been removed from the pediatric market in multiple other developed countries, the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have already been placed on the CDC Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule, just a little over 2 years after their introduction to the public.
There has been no systematic public accounting by the CDC (or any of the HHS agencies) for the more than 35,000reported COVID-19 vaccine-related deaths and more than 1,500,000 reported COVID-19 vaccine-related adverse eventsreported as of July 7, 2023, to the CDC’s own Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), nor for the corresponding numbers of COVID vaccine-related deaths and adverse events reported to Eudravigilance (the European Union’s equivalent to VAERS), even as the CDC continues to strongly promote these vaccines for use, including placing them on the CDC Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule.
By labeling the novel COVID mRNA products as “vaccines,” the definition of the term “vaccine” has become so broadened that essentially any medication that induces an immune response against a disease may now be dubbed a “vaccine,” thereby shielding pharmaceutical companies from liability under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 to a previously unimagined extent.
Vaccine mandates thereby compel citizens to submit to medical treatments a) that are regarded under Federal law to be “unavoidably unsafe,” b) that because they are unavoidably unsafe, their manufacturers are protected by Federal law from liability for harm done to citizens, c) whose manufacturers and government agencies nevertheless promote publicly as “safe and effective,” in direct contradiction to their legal status as “unavoidably unsafe,” and d) that have increased tremendously in number in recent decades, and, with mRNA technology and a broadened definition of the term “vaccine,” stand to multiply at an even greater rate in the future.
I hope these 10 sentences will help the unconvinced to reconsider the central dogma surrounding vaccines. We, as a society, need to reject the article of faith that vaccines are fundamentally “safe and effective.”
Vaccines, due to their unavoidably unsafe nature, should NEVER be mandated, and a thorough, product-by-product accounting of the individual vaccines needs to be done outside of government agencies.
How can we accomplish this?
Please forgive me if you thought I was done. I have 10 more sentences listing my proposed solutions to the trouble with vaccines. I ask you to trudge through these as well. Most of them are shorter than the first 10. Thank you.
A Proposed Solution to the Trouble with Vaccines in 10 (more) Sentences:
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) should be repealed, returning vaccines to the same liability status as other drugs.
Federal law should be passed prohibiting the mandating of any and all vaccines at all levels of government.
Federal law should be passed prohibiting all direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs.
Federal law should be passed prohibiting all collaboration between the Department of Health and Human Services’ “alphabet soup” agencies (FDA, CDC, NIH, etc.) and either the Department of Defense (US Army, DARPA, etc.) or the Federal Intelligence Agencies (CIA, DHS, etc.) with regard to vaccine development or vaccine distribution to the public.
Federal law should be passed prohibiting all persons working within the HHS agencies from gaining any personal financial benefit from vaccines, including the gaining and holding of patents or royalties, and civil servants in those agencies should be required to take an oath of office not to profit off of any products they approve, regulate, or about which they advise the public.
A thorough and public investigation, including criminal prosecutions where appropriate, should be made regarding the key players (both public and private) involved in the development, marketing, manufacture, sale, and administration of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, and following the investigation, there should be appropriate reform within the HHS agencies.
Detailed, independent, Cochrane-style reviews of every vaccine on the CDC vaccine schedules should be undertaken and made public, and no scientists with financial interests within the pharmaceutical industry should conduct these reviews.
Detailed, independent reviews of all reports from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) related to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines should be undertaken and made public, and appropriate reforms to VAERS should be made.
A detailed Congressional review of the money trails related to COVID-era programs, including Operation Warp Speed and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, should be conducted, focusing on fraud and abuse at all levels, including how private companies such as Pfizer and Moderna profited so enormously from taxpayer-funded initiatives.
A open, public discussion and debate should be undertaken on the appropriate role of vaccines in public health, including, among other issues, a) a critical review of the current medical dogma on vaccines, b) an accounting of the mistakes, abuses, and potential lessons of the COVID-19 era, and c) a thorough discussion of the undeniable conflicts between public health as it is now practiced and the fundamental civil rights of citizens.
The medical establishment’s current dogma on vaccines (“safe and effective,” no questions asked) and its corresponding catechism (the ever-expanding vaccine schedules) are in desperate need of reform. I submit that we begin with the above steps.
Reformers are not heretics, although they are commonly labeled as such by powerful persons resisting reform. I, for one, am not a heretic, nor am I an “anti-vaxxer.” I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The problem is, when one looks closely at the vaccine schedules, there turns out to be a lot more bathwater and a lot less baby than advertised.
It is time for the profession of medicine, and society as a whole, to come out of the Dark Ages on this topic. It is time for an open, forthright reevaluation of vaccines and their role in public health.
Good conservatives have thrown their hats in the ring for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. In spite of his and his primary supporters presumptions Trump does not own the ring. As Republicans with ideas, with however more or less merits, they have the right to challenge the political situation – just as Trump did in 2016 — in pursuit of what they see is best for America by convincing first the party’s primary voters of their approach. Anticipating electability is properly a big factor in the primary voters’ decision making as to whom to put forward. A lot is at stake.
Trump supporters will insist that he is the most electable and that is certainly a recurring theme for Trump — touting polls (snapshots of opinion regarding a battle that has only just started) that indicate he leads the Republican field and that say he would prevail over Joe Biden. Trump does not usually talk about the margins for that matchup.
But the degree of transference from who is most known to at this point largely unengaged Republicans “Trump leads by a wide margin for Republican nomination” to who is best to defeat Biden/ Democrat nominee is not clear at all. Trump’s current standing is also a result of a situation where Trump owns the media attention and in the conservative outlets that Republican primary voters listen to that attention is largely defensive of him (and rightly so to a great extent). Trump benefits from the attention because the indictments are so unfair.
The current polling “factoids”also indicate that at least one other candidate – DeSantis- is within the polling margin of error vis a vi Biden. In such a poll — if Trump leads Biden by 1% and the margin of error of the poll is 3% or 4% by the same poll Trump could be behind by 2% or 3% and by the same degree of certainty (or uncertainty) a challenger to Trump does better against Biden. However far supposedly behind Trump DeSantis is at this stage of the primary match-up, in those same snapshots DeSantis can (and does) poll to be actually superior to Trump against Biden or essentially as competitive.
Such polls also presume that Biden will be the Democrat nominee. But if Biden is not the Democrat nominee, which we believe a real possibility, and the Democrat nominee presumably cannot avoid debates — we think a Republican superior at debating without eating a live rat on stage* will increase their standing if it is not too late in the process.
Trump is still arguably a risky pick by the very polls he touts.
*always grateful to SF for the descriptor of a candidate blowing up his or her standing on stage by saying or doing something gross or stupid — in Trump’s case unforced errors for lack of a filter or even arrogance.
Abortion is legal in Iowa half way through a pregnancy — up to 20 weeks (and even beyond depending on the loopholes deployed). The state is becoming an abortion mecca as hereby states have chosen to protect innocent human life. The baby shown here (at about one pound) using intrauterine fiber-optic photography would still be eligible for poisoning or slicing and dicing by the abortionist.
Our local state legislators need to hear from area residents in support of the right to life TODAY.
Find your state legislators here. Linking from the look up will get you their e-mail addresses and or the Capitol phone number
Short sweet message — Dear (legislator) Please support the Heartbeat legislation in the special session that has been called.
The matter essentially is that the same bill proposed now to protect the right to life was passed four years ago (read about “the why” this is necessary below). But remember as well that it was claimed by the usual suspects that passing it back then would be an albatross around the neck of the Republican Party, even the death of the party. Instead, Republicans in recent elections at every level have built their strength in this state.
Background:
The Iowa legislature has been called into special session this Tuesday (tomorrow) for the sole purpose of addressing so called Heartbeat legislation that would protect many unborn babies (with exceptions) extending from the time a heartbeat is detected by common instrumentation in standard medical office practice.
It is a longer story than this but suffice it to say the special session has been called by pro-life Governor Reynolds and is necessitated because the Iowa Supreme Court, deadlocked over a procedural dispute regarding the removal of an injunction applied to similar legislation that was passed by an earlier legislature but was enjoined by a district judge prior to this same Iowa Supreme Court’s reversal of previous holdings regarding abortion regulation. Got that.
The arguments about the propriety of directing the lower court to lift the injunction can get a bit arcane. Further, in reading the competing opinions it concerns us that the some on the court might be opting for a strict scrutiny test for abortion regulations rather than a rational basis test — the latter in keeping with what ought to be a presumption that legislation properly passed is presumed constitutional — the burden being on appellants.
We hope/plan in another post to get into the anomalies involved in the warring opinions and dissents from the justices in recent Iowa Supreme Court abortion litigation.
Previously the Iowa Supreme Court was hostile to the right to life of the unborn, for the most part disallowing abortion regulation but now, at least, holding (as of last year about this time) that the Iowa Constitution does allow for abortion regulation as was the case for most of its history as a state. That history was only interrupted by the US Supreme Court’s imposition on all states of the abortion license under the horrendous rubric of Roe V Wade and its companion case Doe v Bolton. Those decisions preempted any meaningful protection at anytime before birth, imposing on America the most wide-open abortion policy in the Western world.
Subsequent US Supreme Court holdings marginally allowed for additional regulation but even prohibitions on late term abortion were ineffectual and non-existent in some states, as is true today. The US Supreme Court abandoned Roe V Wade to the ash heap of very dark history in the Dobbs decision of last year. Iowa supposedly has a 20 week abortion prohibition (halfway through pregnancy) that proabortionists did not challenge at the time of their achievement of an injunction on the Heartbeat legislation. They chose to concentrate on Iowa becoming a mecca for abortion from surrounding states that have passed more protective legislation like that proposed for a vote this week.
States can regulate and protect for the right to life which many states have done — affirmed by the US Supreme Court and the Iowa Supreme Court.
Inherent in this special session is the presumption (however not the rule) that by re-passing virtually the same legislation now enjoined that the three recalcitrant Iowa Supreme Court members refusing to direct the lower court to remove the injunction in light of all that has gone on will be placated and hopefully a Hearbeat bill will finally go into effect.
Contact information for a quick note or as lengthy as you want to impart as long as it gets done is as follows:
General look up with links to your legislator (State House and State Senate):
The county, district, state, and national Republican platforms are all strongly pro-life. Republicans have advanced there standing overall in the statehouse, statewide offices, with candidates supportive of the right to life. Iowa’s Congressional and US Senate delegations — Grassley, Ernst, Miller-Meeks, Hinson, Nunn, Feenstra all take pro-life positions and have pro-life voting records — all won their most recent elections, all but one post Dobbs, including Nunn who beat an incumbent Democrat they were desperate to save, all while facing an aggressive onslaught of pro-abortion histrionics.
We just went through an election where Scott Webster running for an open State Senate seat was up against a virulent pro-abortion candidate DOCTOR (as she never failed to mention) Mary Kathleen Figaro whose focus was to attack Scott Webster’s pro-life views ( we have the text and and can get the buy frequency of her radio spots) — she practically owned the popular radio station 97x and did similar spots on other media we ran into. Scott pretty much ignored the attack as to a direct response, simply stating his views, but clearly Figaro’s message was out there to the effect that ~~ Scott Webster wants to put women in jail ~~ bla, bla, bla.
The result — he won, actually expanding on the expected margin in the Republican district.”
The phenomenal success of Luana Stoltenberg in her Democrat district that abuts Websters is of note — again, the main line of attack of her opponent was her “extremist” pro-life views — but with no help from the state party — she won in a double-digit deficit district for Republicans.
Phyllis Thede used the “protect abortion rights” as the prime area of attack on Mike Vondron. He won solidly.
Death for Republicans for being pro-life — where is thy sting?
Being a Republican means supporting the right to life. People realize the association and support Republicans for their commitment to conservative values against the utter extremism of Democrats.
Iowa protected the right to life for the overwhelming history of its existence as a state. I plead with you to restore in part the protection of the law for the right to life that I had, our parents, their parents, their parents’ parents and generations more which the proposed heartbeat bill will help do. Exceptions (certain unborn children left out) are built into the bill, for disability and the crime of the father. That is what it is but the bill is still supportable as it advances protection. The bill is in keeping with Republican values and greatest history of Iowa values.
Again, please vote yes in the special session for the proposed Heartbeat bill.
Oh to be sure, anything out of the Washington Post needs to be evaluated for selectivity bias but the bulk of this “first person” assemblage of comments made, by mostly Republicans, about Trump and DeSantis reflect many of what we have encountered and observed about sentiment toward the two. Certainly many additional common takes can be added. We intend to capture, consolidate and reflect on key points of contention regarding the candidates’ positions, record and personas in coming days.
The Florida governor is appealing to the GOP’s right flank as he tries to peel support away from Donald Trump. But many are still drawn to the former president, who leads by a wide margin in the polls
. . . and the least secure place to put your vote to the extent it involves absentee vote by mail
A priority push for it by RNC will cost extra millions to pay chasers because volunteers are not likely to repeatedly hector people to “bank their vote” and do the necessary follow-up
A basic question is left unanswered — why vote early ? “So we can bank it” is not an answer to why “banking” the vote of people who will vote anyway is key to anything or a wise resource allocation.
After spending a lot to get people to vote early, is that all that are going to vote? That seems to be the plan.
The RNC bank-the-vote goal confuses and emphasizes process over results and misapplies resources to do so
If that “every Republican vote early” is the goal who is voting on Election Day — how are those people to be influenced to vote the right way?
Those people who are apparently concerned enough to show up on Election Day are they too stupid to vote early and have their vote sitting around?
So what will influence them and isn’t that key to winning as it will produce the most votes across the board . . . or is the plan to leave room for the message to be corrupted to induce them to vote having “banked” the earlier voters with a different message, perhaps a contradictory one?
Under Chairman McDaniel’s rubric is there any need for an Election Day or is that just the last day of early voting?
What would have happened in 2020 had news of Hunter Biden’s laptop come out before so much early voting was completed? That is one important reason why voting early is not a safe good-government process
Also responding to — it can’t hurt and we have to do what Democrats do
It is our contention that “vote banking” the preferred term now used by RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel for ballot harvesting /ballot chasing / vote now before-you-die-or-forget-what-day-it-is-or-a-Democrat-gets-to-you hectoring — will not be a good bang for the buck and is likely to walk on effective messaging.
Sowing seeds through good messaging, early messaging, and authentic performance of party and elected officials will produce a more ample and sustainable crop rather than concentrating resources on picking low hanging fruit of people likely to vote on their own volition or devoting earned and paid media time and space to the mechanics of voting and telling people the falsity that they won’t receive anymore calls or door knocks or mail. Spend the resources inoculating and motivating broader reaches of voters.
A lot of fruit, from typically hard to reach branches could be brought to harvest, plumped by sunlight of truthful but aggressive messaging such that it will virtually fall into the harvest basket in due course is forgone when time and resources are spent hectoring Republicans to vote early in Chairman McDaniel’s preferred way everywhere.
OK we may be straining the harvest analogy so let’s talk practical responses to the RNC chairwoman’s statements. Here are excerpts from her statements in an article posted at Townhall and that of hers posted on a special RNC website she devotes to the matter. At this writing there was not further information available on the website. The numbers in parentheses are there to protect the flow of Chairman McDaniel’s discourse and refer to Chairwoman McDaniel’s preceding statement and to our similarly numbered response set forth later.
Bank Your Vote is a nationwide campaign focused on maximizing pre-Election Day voting. The fact of the matter is that we no longer have just “Election Day” – we have election seasons, with many states opening their polls for weeks. (1) Republicans saw success in 2022 with absentee voting, early in-person voting, and ballot harvesting. (2) Now, as we work to protect the House, flip the Senate, and win back the White House in 2024, we are doubling down and making the Bank Your Vote campaign our number one priority (3). Republicans continue to oppose bad laws in the courtroom, but we’ll also play by the rules we’re given. We’re turning the full power of our unmatched political ground game, data operation, legal resources, and messaging apparatus towards Banking Your Vote(4) to chase down every ballot. Not only will we ballot harvest where it’s legal, but we’ll beat the Democrats at their own game.
The RNC’s digital and data team will strategically target voters who will give us the highest return and run up the score.(5) Moving towards the 2024 election, the RNC will partner with state parties to create pages outlining pre-Election Day voting processes for all 56 states and territories with links to state government sites where voters can request their ballot directly. The RNC’s field operation, which has made over 300 million door knocks and phone calls over the last two election cycles,(6) will go neighbor-to-neighbor and town-to-town to mobilize Republicans nationwide. (7) Meanwhile, our election integrity operation will continue to protect the vote by leveraging tens of thousands of poll watchers and poll workers, maximizing and expanding the number of in-person voting locations, (8) and continuing to fight Democrats in the courts. We will have staff and lawyers on the ground to fully ensure voter confidence; every branch of the RNC will be working in tandem to make sure that early votes make it into the ballot box with total security and integrity. (9)
While this effort is RNC-led, we’ll be working closely with our partners in the Republican ecosystem: we’ll only beat Biden if we’re all working together (10). . .
Above all, this will be a grassroots-powered effort. (11) Not even a perfect strategy can work if it isn’t driven by patriots coast-to-coast who believe in our Republican message and understand that our nation’s future is on the line. . . . Righting these wrongs and getting back on course will take all of us working together. And it will require Republicans voting early in person, voting absentee, (11) and ballot harvesting where legal to drive up our numbers at the polls.
So we visited the website Chairwoman McDaniel promotes BankYourVote.com. Her statement there is available on YouTube as well. We have placed the YouTube provided transcript the imbedded video. No punctuation is provided in their transcripts so we did our best to provide it from the flow of the video presentation. Again, numbers refer to statements we will respond to. Assume clerical errors are ours.
Hi I’m Ronna McDaniel chairwoman of the Republican National Committee
In 2022 we laid the groundwork for this critical election cycle by running the largest ever election Integrity operation across the country over 80 000 Republicans served as poll watchers and poll workers. (12)
Our work to protect the vote will be supercharged in 2024 with an even larger team of Grassroots leaders and more key lawsuits. (13)
The RNC is laser focused on beating Joe Biden and far left Democrats next November and in addition to protecting the vote we need you to bank your vote.
To win close elections we need to close the gap on pre-election day voting. (14) That’s why we’re launching the bank your vote initiative.
Bank your vote encourages educates and activates Republican voters on when where and how to cast their ballot before election day. (15)
We make great strides in getting Republicans to cast their results before election day in 2022 but now we must encourage more of our voters to request ballots or vote early in person and we can’t do that without you. (16
Please spread the word about bankyourvote.com to your friends and family tell them to go to the site and find out when where and how to get their vote banked and make 100% sure their voice is heard again. . . . (17). That is bankyourvote.com
If we don’t vote early we’re giving the Democrats a head start but when Republicans vote early we win (18) and in 2024 we are going to hold the House win back the Senate and take the White House. God bless you and God bless the United States of America.
VeritasPAC responds:
(1) True, it is no longer election day but election season — but pushing more vote by mail necessitates a counting season and accompanying issues with that, including finality. Voting by mail is rejected by most other countries because it is the most vulnerable to fraud and not in keeping with good government precepts of voting when the campaigning and debates are over, each side has said its peace. The integrity of the vote in absentee voting by mail is devoid of poll watchers and more subject to coercion — in ones or twos or en mass.
We do not object to voting in person at absentee locations set up for voting a few days prior to Election Day or traditional restricted absentee vote by mail for bonified reason no earlier than a week or perhaps ten days prior to Election Day.
Voting in person is the best way to insure that the vote is private, uncoerced, and the voter is a valid voter. Emphasizing vote by mail which the RNC is now doing will only expand problems of verification of signatures, chain of custody, and aggravate ability to monitor the integrity of the election. It is made to order for unscrupulous Democrats or any GOTV activity of either party incentivized by head counts of harvested or “banked” votes.
Our view is that a generalized program of pushing early vote by mail in order to allow harvesting only creates an aura of cheat to win (even though Republicans are not as likely to, the harvesting incentives for Democrats are made more compelling), makes audits ever more difficult, impacts privacy, and objectively is not a good-government process to hector people to vote prior to debates and late expose’s which may properly impact the election. Very few countries allow early vote by mail because it is the least safe, breeds corruption and erodes confidence in the process as an honest reflection of voter sentiment.
(2) No examples are offered by Chairwoman McDaniels but champions of the ballot harvesting boondoggle sometimes refer to two House races in Southern California where we are told Republican ballot harvesting of a sort took place — the 2022 races of Michelle Steel and Young Kim. But here’s the thing — Republicans winning in Republican or Republican trending districts is not necessarily earthshaking nor is “harvesting” decisive.
We see that Cook Political Report had Steele’s district leaning Republican at least since October of that year and Young Kim’s district as likely Republican. Steele’s opponent stepped on his appendage with his comments and Kim’s opponent was just not a good fit. Both Steele and Kim were good candidates, incumbents for parts of their districts, did good jobs campaigning and in GOTV so we fail to see how one method of voting was decisive.
(3). The number one priority ought to be the most votes cast forRepublicans not how the vote is cast.
(4) “turning unmatched political ground game, data operation, legal resources, and messaging apparatus towards Banking Your Vote”. Indeed “unmatched” so where was it before? So all that is to be devoted primarily to how one votes rather than increasing votes on the presumption that how one votes brings in more votes? American voting turnout was as great or greater in the 60’s when absentee voting was restricted, transportation availability was arguably worse, we would bet voting precinct locations fewer and early satellite locations rare if in existence at all, job accommodations rare, voting was more a matter of civic pride, lines or not, rather than hectoring.
By the way, how good is a data operation as to cost saving efficiency which in spite of the readily available voting history cannot see someone like yours truly has voted every general election and primary for decades and most municipal and school board races (all on Election Day) and therefor am not a marginal voter — yet I get inundated with wasteful phone calls, direct mail telling me how to vote absentee and that I should vote absentee?
(5) “target voters who will give us the highest return and run up the score” Indeed this sounds like concentrating on low hanging fruit of likely voters making sure they vote early which serves primarily to waste efforts on people who would vote anyway to run up the vote early score which does not necessarily win elections. You really do not have to “strategically” worry about those as opposed to reaching out to those less likely to vote R. Prioritizing resources for devotion to likely R voters to vote early means resources for inoculation and persuasion are reduced and those possible persuadable voters are left to Democrats.
(6) will go neighbor-to-neighbor and town-to-town to mobilize Republicans nationwide. is a lot of repetitive phone calling at less than 1% answer rate NOW TO BE EXPANDED?! and door knocking at 25% to 30% answer rate on a good day and time in suburbia and to little or no avail without good messaging. The little engagement actually experienced at the door or by phone, forgoing motivational messaging for hectoring about voting mechanics is not all that useful or efficient.
(7) That is a lot of walking and it will have to be mostly by paid people, paid in a competitive environment and involves followup and collection and delivery where legal. Republicans do not have the venues for group absentee voting nor the alternatively paid workforce of government employees, NGOs, unions to do the work and be paid by them or who have a direct financial stake in Democrat policies and patronage.
(8) maximizing and expanding the number of in-person voting locations — using in-person voting locations is the most secure voting process for a variety of reasons — voter ID is checked contemporaneous to the vote, it avoids risks in relying on the mail, the chain of custody is far easier to observe and involves less handling and more reasons. Emphasizing anything but in person voting is anti-Republican interests.
(9) maximizing and expanding the number of in-person voting locations. Now that is a better priority plan and the most secure early voting plan. Any legislative requirements should be pursued vigorously. But pushing vote by mail as early as possible, the main RNC plan, is the antithesis of security and integrity of the vote and against Republican (and good-government) interests as it also enhances acceptance of a voting process less amenable to those proper aims heretofore advocated in Republican platforms.
(10) Republican ecosystem — not sure what Chairman McDaniel means by that but conservative PACs, c-4 and c-3 groups have various restrictions on “being led” (coordination). Further most are not going to give themselves over to the likes of Chairman McDaniel, no offense and however worthy, they have their own missions. But regardless, in our mind it raises the concern that one size does not fit all but also sustains that the attempt to join forces in such an enterprise is just as likely to aggravate duplication and waste, not prevent them.
Vote early if you want but they are still not going to leave you alone
Keep in mind that one of the inducements threats, used to promote early voting is to the effect ~~ if you vote now by mail and let us take it now or comeback real soon you won’t get any more of these “reminder” calls and door knocks~~ we will take you off our list~~.
It is of course a load of bull, and even worse than the bum’s rush, it is browbeating, menacing or bullying and for some anxious people it is coercion or extortion. If you think that is an exaggeration you have not heard some of the communications or experienced the vulnerabilities of some senior citizens and others.
It is bull because the calls and door knocks and mail will not end as long as one member of the household has not voted early, so there is no real money saved in those common situations and accordingly no reduced irritations to that household. And even if the data were maintained well, the whole ‘we know you voted already” thing smacks of big-brotherism. Voting “completions” registered on a timely basis (which depends on county election officials and their standards)results won’t affect non-affiliated organizations (actually most of the political world and their programs of door knocks, phone calling, direct mail, etc., etc. Nor does an early voting program seriously reduce savings as regards broadcast or internet advertising (which may include extortions to vote early), which presumably need to go on for all those persuadable recalcitrants. It is all so phony and wasteful of “face time” and persuadable moments and good mass-messaging.
(11) So the game plan is definitely not limited to having Republicans vote early in person and while early voting in person may not be good citizenship, we accept it is more secure than vote by mail. And fine if it would end with that — let people know where the early vote locations are and most importantly give them reasons to vote Republican. That is a short uncomplicated message tag then to move on. But the impression Chairman McDaniel wants to give is that voting by mail , however many Republicans are already doing it (against interests) is the real banking the vote in terms of a collection agency or something.
Vote by mail ought to be deemphasized for the security and integrity of the vote, as counter good-government, in order to have resources for early inoculation against the Democrat virus (Trump should like that as he was so into the whole vaccination thing) rather than spending face time with the mechanics of voting by mail trying to convince people it is secure and not the devils playground as is the judgement of most of the civilized world. No badgering or extortions such as “so we can leave you alone”.
(12) over 80 000 Republicans served as poll watchers and poll workers. Great but who are they going to watch when there is a concentration on vote by mail? One might respond their job becomes to watch when those ballots come in and are counted. But how many will be knowledgable to judge by engaging in signature verification (where it is actually done) which is needed to insure the integrity of absentee voting? Signature verification is a slow and sophisticated process subject to error. Why push for more dependance on such a process.
(13) and more key lawsuits. Seriously that has to be started now as preemptive measures regarding Democrat policies producing laxity in the integrity of the vote and which have insufficient safeguards to guarantee “one man one vote”. Chairman McDaniel seems to forget lawsuits just before or after an election, no matter how corrupt the election, is not the catbird position.
(14 To win close elections we need to close the gap on pre-election day voting. Again she does not say why expanding Election Day voting would not do the same thing (win more close elections). Does she seriously believe Election Day voting is maxed out or that substituting or marshaling a lot of resources explaining, cajoling, and doing the follow up necessary to increase one mechanism of voting is a substitute for another method of voting that is more secure. It is our position that the extensive resources necessary for a ballot banking/harvesting program is better spent on inoculating early and motivational messaging that persuades people including no-party and Democrat leaners to vote Republican.
(15) Bank your vote encourages educates and activates Republican voters on when where and how to cast their ballot before election day. Republicans are sentient. Indeed likely Republican voters of any former stripe are now sentient. We challenge Chairman McDaniel to show us why an expensive program of cajoling to vote early by mail as opposed to unobtrusively providing simple basic information on voting locations so as not to walk on the persuasive message of the need to vote Republican produces more votes than not having those resources spent toward expanding the Republican vote however they choose to exercise that vote.
(16) We made great strides in getting Republicans to cast their results (sp?) before election day in 2022 but now we must encourage more of our voters to request ballots or vote early in person and we can’t do that without you. Again, the winning comes from having more votes no matter the means, winning is not dependent on early voting or voting by mail. Winning is dependent on the most total votes cast. Now we will admit that when we heard read that last clause — and we can’t do that without you — we fully expected the financial ask — but it didn’t come per se — but it did remind us that not only will the hectoring to vote early not stop after one votes early – the special targeted fundraising and admonitions to get you to now twist the arms of all your friends to vote early will not stop. That may be the bread and butter of political fund raising but it belies any statement regarding vote now and we won’t bother you anymore. The vote early admonitions and fund raising to do so won’t stop no matter how many times you voted 😉
(17). Of course they want you to get in on the hectoring, and you should encourage and persuade friends and family to vote, but as regards voting early, if your friends and family are sentient no need to give them the bums rush. Pass on the literature of where the voting locations are but concentrate on why vote Republican.
(18) If we don’t vote early we’re giving the Democrats a head start but when Republicans vote early we win. Really? Isn’t my vote on Election Day worth the same as an early vote?Why is the rabbit and hare analogy not pertinent — steady course of persuasion (starting steady and early like the turtle) good resource allocation wins the race.
Persuasion fuels races not spinning wheels of volunteers or expensive largely trade-off paid activity pushing early voting. The fundamental goal is more votes not early votes.
Expand in-person voting to satellite centers to accommodate some early voting but not 30 or 40 days for ballot harvesting (that is the minimum Democrats say they need).
Message-less vote-early harangues whether using door-to-door, phone or mail, and devoting such in banner ads, and radio and TV advertising buys are largely wasteful. Use the money that will need to be raised for that to appeal to the majority of people who are largely tired of the woke nonsense — unlimited illegal immigration, — energy DEPENDENCE, — men in women’s sports, — crime and no punishment, — costs of food, fuel and home prices — high taxes — no normalcy, culture being destroyed, sexualizing children — abortion on demand for any reason at any time before birth, — corporations with no allegiance to the US, — one-world government, — failing schools . . . Spend the large amount of money necessary for assertive ballot harvesting programs on better truth telling messaging to be productively reaped because it resists Democrats noxious plants.
God bless her but I do not think she understands what drives Republican voters — it is not vote early by mail after being hectored endlessly to do so through an expensive boondoggle operation inefficiently exchanging an in-person ballot for a risky mailed-in ballot. It is sound early messaging which serves both to increase Republican votes and diminish straight Democrat voting — and aggressive and preemptive lawfare in support of election integrity as well — messaging she is quite capable of, indeed excels at.
If we spin our wheels “chasing ballots” in order to be “doing something” — well we won’t – other than to inefficiently waste money and messaging telling people how they must vote by mail and we will be right over to pick it up. What is needed is bite – traction to go forward — candidates with it telling people what the Democrats are about — and a party apparat as aggressive in messaging and performance as our best candidates.
It is our contention that “vote banking” the preferred term now used by RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel for ballot harvesting /ballot chasing / vote now before-you-die-or-forget-what-day-it-is-or-a-Democrat-gets-to-you hectoring — will not be a good bang for the buck and is likely to walk on effective messaging.
Sowing seeds through good messaging, early messaging, and authentic performance of party and elected officials will produce a more ample and sustainable crop rather than concentrating resources on picking low hanging fruit of people likely to vote on their own volition or devoting earned and paid media time and space to the mechanics of voting and telling people the falsity that they won’t receive anymore calls or door knocks or mail. Spend the resources inoculating and motivating broader reaches of voters.
OK we may be straining the harvest analogy so let’s talk practical responses to the RNC chairwoman’s statements. Here are excerpts from her statements in an article posted at Townhall and that of hers posted on a special RNC website she devotes to the matter. At this writing there was not further information available on the website. The numbers in parentheses are there to protect the flow of Chairman McDaniel’s discourse and refer to Chairwoman McDaniel’s preceding statement and to our similarly numbered response set forth later.