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 no panacea – it is something not all that available to Republicans
It inextricably requires pushing vote by mail/absentee voting
Adopting it will not lead to voting integrity in blue, purple or red states
Labor intensive money better spent on other influencing methodologies
No blue ribbons for trading in-person voting for vote-by-mail
Some fun memes that might help make the point
For Democrats ballot harvesting processes are — 1) the only way they can get many of their total idiots to vote, 2) a useful way to intimidate others, and 3) part of the process of efficiently inventing voters and voting them.
It is our view that for Republicans ballot harvesting (which necessitates pushing early voting by mail) to the extent that resources devoted to it are substituted from early sound messaging that accentuates organic economic and cultural concerns which would serve to inoculate potential voters, would largely be a counterproductive boondoggle. Early truthful and aggressive messaging suppresses stupid voting — the Democrat’s intended results for their ballot harvesting.
Ballot harvesting is just not all that available to the Republican infrastructure or as regards the number of foot soldiers necessary to do the harvesting. For Democrats the harvesters are often paid by others (one way or another) who have direct financial incentives tied to Democrats — unions, NGOs, government employees, college and university apparatus and more.
Republicans have more church attendance, a theoretical potential venue, which ought to be exercised in some ways apart from ballot harvesting, but it is a particularly doubtful venue for ballot harvesting because of anticipated non-cooperation by clergy who feel constrained or who are hostile to Republicans in spite of the sentiments of those in the pews. Even when available some such venues would open up the probability of competing harvesting activities.
Our view is contra the many recent calls from presumed (or self-presumed) Republican “political realists” who contend that in order to be competitive Republicans must do as Democrats do and adopt ballot harvesting where legal or ignored. We believe it is unscrupulous as a matter of good-government because it requires a general push or zeitgeist for the approval of early voting by mail which is fraught with opportunities for fraud and other negative good-government aspects.
We also think the “realism” of Republican advocates of ballot harvesting is naive, or inexperienced in what it would entail and myopic about who would respond. We also believe it an attack on the conservative activist base who have fought for voter integrity laws and which will be irritated at best by the resources inextricably wasted hectoring them to vote early and if not voting in front of the “harvesters’ to have someone pick up their ballot right away so it can be “banked”. The process does not trust Republicans to mail it themselves.
We believe that more voters can be “banked” either on Election Day (or earlier as they choose) if the expensive allocations for manpower necessary to ballot harvest were devoted to earlier messaging serving to increase Republican leaning voting numbers and help reduce or attenuate the voting rate and enthusiasm of otherwise Democrat leaning voters.
Of course these “realists” admit that for the ballot harvesting process to be successful requires conservatives to all of a sudden drop rhetoric opposing early vote-by-mail and get with the ballot harvesting ickiness. So no more of this from the RNC . Our comments continue below.
Some ballot harvesting advocates scold that such a program is the only way to win because Democrats win doing it and when Republicans don’t do it many Republican ballots are being left on the table, impliedly even being picked up by Democrats.
Other “realists” go on to argue/ placate the principled ‘Neanderthals’ (like us) that oppose ballot harvesting projects and the inherent explicit push for early voting by mail by telling us not only is it the only way to win (we guess because everything else is done thoroughly and effectively) but it is actually the path to eliminating the detested ballot harvesting (said with little if any sincerity). You see,only by winning (which requires ballot harvesting) can Republicans win the legislatures in the states that allow it in order to end the practice. The supposedly bipartisan call for ending it will come about because Democrats will see that ~~ oh Republicans can play the game better than us, so to survive we better join hands with election integrity fetishist Republicans opposed to it and outlaw it. They actually argue the essence of that in an attempt at clever irony or something.
For such an unlikely scenario they never explain why Republicans would give up a tool they are beating Democrats with, or Democrats would give up the only technique they have to turn out or invent much of their vote. We think that political “reality” belies the scencerity of the argument.
Ballot harvesting requires early voting which becomes a bi-partisan anti-good-government zeitgeist that is aggravated when both parties promote it. Republican advocates of ballot harvesters are wanting to join the bandwagon, increase the reliance on early vote-by-mail.
We ask: How many Republican votes did the Republican early voting advocates loose to early suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop revelations and other matters which only started to gain legs in the final week(s) of the 2020 election? Those votes may have been available from marginal Dems and marginal Republicans voting Dem but were already “banked” (insert not mere snark but derision as to use of the term). See here and here.
It is also our view that Republicans 1) are not idiots, they know how to vote 2) those who might be inclined or induced to vote Republican are no longer total idiots and are compelled to vote by appropriate messaging, 3) Republicans won’t be intimidated – being more principled, independent, offended by and immune to the bum’s rush inherent in ballot harvesting, 4) will not countenance literally littering the community with absentee requests and even actual ballots and then the necessary hordes paid to traipse through communities hectoring and collecting them 5) instinctively and rightly do not trust vote by mail because it is so fraud available indeed outlawed by democratic countries across the world, 6) realize that the hectoring does not stop from the paid apparat engaged in this incessant activity, due to poor updating and overlap with other teams and organizations 7) understand that early voting is anti-good government as voting takes place before final debates, and revelations come forth 8) possessed of real and potential privacy issues and corrupt influences and 9) seriously — signature “verification” because signatures are uniform, verification is actually done, verification is reliable and incorruptible, and produces timely election results en mass — matters easily ridiculed but which ballot harvester proponents are forced to defend.
Who and where will it be done, where are the Republican enclaves not voting that are accessible.
All the “do as Democrats do” champions need to answer this question: who are these people YOU are going to harvest ballots from and then who else is going to do it. Will they get their hands dirty because for many it is unseemly at best to hector someone into giving you their ballot?. They might respond: WHAT a simple phone call to say “we see you have not voted yet and we would like to come over and pick up your ballot, and take that burden off of you. If you cooperate you won’t get these calls anymore.” That is the essence of the message and there is a lot, mostly negative, wrapped up in that for inclined Republican voters.
Phoning for years now has been a diminishing return operation (nevertheless vendor driven) requiring more and more phoning to get fewer connects. People do not answer the phone from unknown numbers (thanks telemarketers) and one reason is because they know that in the political season the “no more calls” script is a lie. As long as there is one hold out voting traditionally in that household the calls will be incessant and the lack of coordination is such that political calls just increase up to election day. So it becomes a paid operation door to door like the Democrats and that leads to “shortcuts” and pumping up the numbers and both mean fraud. That’s no game for a republic or Republicans to be championing. And yet Republicans still win in states that still allow vote by mail early, just not harvesting. One thing Republicans can do better is inoculate with good messaging, indeed attack ads telling the truth about Democrats in the spring and summer.
In our judgement hectoring people to vote early is key to nothing, it is inefficiently trading timely votes for early votes to earn some paid apparatchiks some gold stars. It is based on the theory of marginally increasing total votes which we fear would be at the expense of instead using the resources to create a larger juggernaut of enthusiasm to vote to save the country from Democrats. Performance by Republican elected officials while in office and strong electoral messaging, targeted as necessary, defended not mealy-mouthed, — done early — moves more votes the Republican way than wasteful so called “banking” of votes – a concept the defense of which is ridiculous and a lie in practice.
If you have one 30 second or a 1 minute spot they all cost money whatever the message. Hectoring to vote early to submit to harvesting walks on informative messaging and for many Republicans and independents smacks of the bum’s rush. Calls get through now at a rate of 1% and the hangups for that sort of call are the majority or to tell the caller that they have or will vote. But it does not stop future calls.
Door knocks are answered maybe 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 in prime time ( surrounding the supper hour) in suburbia and less than that other hours of the day. Then there are access controlled buildings to probably not get into. So you mail all kinds of things and, horrendously, even absentee request forms that with fraud minded people might be answered and voted by someone else in the household or even the neighborhood and not necessarily by the Republican lest anyone have any doubt. Turn people against Democrats and you just may have THEM vote against the Democrat in the privacy of their home, even if it is collected by a Democrat.
A lot of the problems Republican face in electioneering were seeded by them as well with their support of the expansion of early vote by mail — an inherently insecure fraud prone anti good-government system. In some states there has been a modest reduction in voting “season” but voting by mail even if reduced to twenty days is an inherent playground for unscrupulous people a.k.a. Democrats. Republicans who vote early by mail are anxious but know how to vote.
The hectoring to vote early by mail of people who know how to vote and will vote one way or another manages only to contribute to the horendous opportunity for fraud, lost votes and delayed counting which somehow always seems to favor Democrats. The vote by mail hectoring is an irritant but more significantly a wasteful one that walks on messaging that ought to be used to inoculate the voting populace early on in opposition to Democrats and for the good Republicans stand for. To those who see some silly benefit in voting early by mail — the sugarplums of thoughtful analysis in the security of sitting around the kitchen table at home — well how the heck do they think people decided who to vote for around the table but by meaningful messaging?
Now subject that vote to multiple handlings by unsworn strangers and storage perhaps in Democrat enclaves???? And as a result when the Democrats see they do not have quite enough votes you have a system that inhibits accurate recounts because of either the practical impossibility of signature verification or the complete impossibility of it because of the purposeful disassociation of validating envelopes.
Vote by mail is a playground for mass and onesy twosy intimidation, made up votes and then continuous counting that somehow generally does not go well for Republicans. Better to restrict vote by mail as inherently fraud prone and emphasize vote in person (even if over at most a week with in-person satellite voting enabled) where there is contemporanious ID check and observation guaranteeing intimidation free privacy of the vote along with simplified and far more reliable chain of custody of the vote. Like the old days when turn-out was as high or higher than it is today.
If Democrats beat Republicans by 9 points in mail-in voting what percentage do Repubs beat them at the polls? If you are saying Repubs are maxed out at the polls you have not seen all-voter turn out figures. The bottom line is more votes (ballots) that can be safely made and authentically survive any recount. Chain of custody is demonsterably superior or at least possible with in-person voting. 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). By the way turn out in the 1960 and 70s was as much or better than today and vote by mail was rare with the overwhelming vote on election DAY.
Voting in person is more secure because ID is checked then and there, there are observers and the vote (if paper ballot) is counted or kept with a chain of custody possible. With vote by mail – you do not know who voted it, in-house onsey-twosey fraudulent votes or harangues are unimpeded, signature verification (if even performedin the jurisdiction ) is weak at best.
Bold truthful messaging will bring more votes
Message-less vote-early harangues whether using door-to-door, phone or mail, and flat messaging in other mail, banner ads, and radio and TV advertising buys are largely wasteful. Use the money that will need to be raised
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 a ballot harvesting program, destined to be an expensive not very productive gleaning operation, on better truth telling messaging to be productively reaped as it resists Democrats noxious plants.
Related reading:
A recent scholarly anti-naive view of Republican ballot-harvesting prospects is this article appearing in The Federalist by Joseph Arlinghaus and William Doyle, Ph.D., of the CaesarRodney Election Research Institute. The institute has done a lot of work exposing the Zuckerberg funded Center for Technology and Civic Life as a thoroughly Democrat get-out-their-vote operation using the color of official election offices, essentially co-opting them.
The following article express both pro and con sentiment as regards ballot harvesting. Readers can evaluate the commentaries using their own experience with grassroots political activity.
As far as Fox’s heretofore winning ratings seasons are concerned, removing Tucker Carlson from their lineup has to be a worse decision than the Falcons giving up Brett Favre to the Green Bay Packers, even worse than the Red Sox giving up Babe Ruth to the Yankees. At least those personnel changes supposedly involved trades. But this seems to be a convulsive brand defeating débâcle by the contemptible jerks that run the show that will only enhance the competition. It will takes years to recover from, if ever.
That is why it is also like the Anhauser-Busch (AB-InBev) Dylan Mulvaney debacle. Self induced and the result of corporate culture that does not seriously appreciate those who pay the bills.
Our opinion is that the Murdochs who are in charge of Fox, in settling with Dominion for lots of money after Fox was sued for commentary about voter fraud mechanisms and vulnerabilities implicating Dominion, and reports of the full settlement’s permutation of getting rid of Tucker Carlson — was not just a payoff to Dominion (earned by them or not because “settlements” are just that, settlements not judgements) and a reflection of the corporate culture the Murdochs are imposing.
The settlement was signaling a mea culpa by the Murdochs to their friends in the left and in essence an attempt at a payout to them by removing a very popular and effective challenger to so much of their agenda. And of course they are using corporate money and disparaging the company’s product and freedoms in the process. It does not make business sense or legal sense in our humble judgement, only the sense of a continuation of imposing their culture on the organization.
The corporate cash along with the “kick me” sign on the company’s ass, inviting every person or outfit who does not like a commentary to make a claim is very bad for the freedom of the press. There is no freedom of speech if you can be successfully sued or easily intimidated to settling for voicing questions or opinion even when offering to issue a clarification or correction. But then Fox corporate does not apparently care about freedom of speech so the most devastating part of the settlement for them is the inescapable damage to the trust their audience had as to Fox’s claimed independence (exception perhaps being Greg Gutfield who may not be long to their world?).
The tipping point has been met. The reporting and other commenters at Fox no matter their pedigree we predict will be seen as compromised . . . avoiding something . . . every utterance just something first OKed by the Murdochs or whomever.
Fox culture is then in some ways like the Anhauser-Busch (AB-InBev) corporate culture which took one step too many going woke — in their case denigrating the cultural sensitivities of their customer base by becoming associated with the cultural degeneration inherent in the normalization of transgenderism (see previous posts herein). The two decisions were tipping point decisions. Both decisions were assaults on their audience/customers, their bread and butter. In both cases it was like the curtain being pulled back exposing the ugly truth about the new bosses.
Reading into the matter one gets the distinct impression the Murdochs really didn’t like Tucker Carlson in spite of all the money he made them. The sons in particular, who are in charge at Fox are devotees of climate BS and must have gone into high dudgeon when Carlson addressed the issue (and no doubt other matters like Jan 6 and voter fraud).
Tucker Carson’s approach to climate change seems to be ~~ it happens, . . . it is not necessarily bad, warmer can be good and the proposed “green” cures are worse for humanity than the supposed disease ~~ the rational school of thought we appreciate. We also think the controlling elements of the green movement are made up of evil one-world government subversives, commies, grifters, and liars but that is just us.
We do not think it mere coincidence that the wife of James Murdoch (Rupert’s son) works for the Clinton Climate initiative and that the couple are big supporters of environmental causes. The Murdochs must have considered Carlson an embarrassing denier, they being in the sky is falling camp (and perhaps a fondness for the “need” of one world government by elites to control climate change).
Was the settlement what they needed to rid themselves of Tucker Carlson (do we know it was not an offer they made?)? We wonder if the Dominion suit was used to give them cover to deal with the rest of their board as to the separation of Carlson: “YOU DID WHAT!? Oh I see Dominion wanted it to basically gut our potential for staying competitive, and a lot of cash besides. Seems like an astute agreement. We should indeed go along with it. Can I short my stock?
Settling as they did, giving up the First Amendment, freedom of the press and their own integrity, severely damaging their standing in competitive viewership gives us the idea that if “Fox” is so willing not to merely settle but self-immolate then why wouldn’t they be easy marks for those aggrieved by their unfairness and distortions now regarding election fraud and climate change?
As a commenter to a Victor Davis Hanson article (see link) wrote “Using the Dominion suit against Fox News as precedent, the Republican Party should sue NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Twitter, Facebook and You Tube for damages caused by the deliberate and repeated slander involved in stories of Russian Collusion, the Steele Dossier, Russian Disinformation, the Hunter Biden Laptop, etc. that damaged the party.”
Although the Fox settlement is not judicial precedent it lights the way for two to play the game. The Murdochs have made themselves either patsies, roll over artists using mostly other peoples money, or the worst negotiators ever.
We are surprised VDH did not pick up on that and frankly also with some of his tone repeating straw man arguments. Maybe Dominion was castigated by some as responsible for manipulating data but the main accusations as regards them was that their technology was manipulatable and hackable (a different argument then that it was or that they did it) and serious observations and claims of abnormalities outside the bounds of electoral history as data rolled in.
Whether or not such observations might prove to be anomalous but innocent, or anomalous as in smoke and supportive of an investigation as to the existence of fire (or disproval of same). — that there was/ is substantial concern was newsworthy including about all voting machines including Dominion’s and therefor appropriate for comment on networks claiming to be news and commentary outlets.
Combine that with all manner of quite substantiated election law violations in various states, disregard of election laws by fiat, extreme laxities and vulnerabilities as to the integrity of mail-in balloting which many countries do not allow or substantially limit, ballot chain of custody issues and more. . . and there is lots to report and analyze without fear of being sued for reporting and commenting.
Add in the unprecedented efforts to co-opt county electoral offices using their official offices in favor of Democrat get out the vote efforts (Zuckerberg money), an activity that was illegal in at least one of the decisive electoral college battle ground states (Wisconsin) . So yes this stuff and more had and has a lot of people properly concerned and vocal about the legitimacy of the 2020 election and such is the warp and woof of news and commentary.
All of it was and is newsworthy and not merely appropriately reportable but demanding reports and real investigations if the “‘profession” of journalism stands for anything. The commentaries and opinion regarding it ought to be considered part and parcel on such important matters.
As for the Fox culture, oh journalism seeps in at times under various personages at Fox cable ( now to be less bold with Carlson’s departure) . . . but if you ever listen to Fox radio feeds on AM stations across the country, ironically the network often associated with conservative talk radio stations, they are as bad or worse as legacy liberal media in deciding what is news and parroting leftist spin. A most recent irritant is the using of the term “transgender care” a euphemism to substitute for the accurate term organ removal or even just surgery. That is a frequent case in point of late along with the ongoing leftist Tourette repetitions regarding Jan 6, and more.
Fox radio has much of the tone of the left and has amplified leftist media pack journalism frequently, all along while singing off with “we report, you decide”. Our observation is that they are part of the lefts choir even if occasionally off key.
Fox corporate (perhaps one division less culpable than another) is a frequent purveyor of leftist created disinformation parroting leftist spin and is not a victim. The Murdochs have managed to make viable the question should the right do what Democrats have done in that respect — intimidate (all of them) right back by threat of lawsuits. Who knows — there might be a return to or definitive recognition of free speech rights.
The Fox settlement is not judicial precedent and we are not in the leftist league of suit and settle because we have no actual friends in the big conglomerate media (Rupert if he ever was once, has abdicated to a couple of leftist sons). Fox’s settlement with Dominion I suspect was atonement, not to Dominion as much as a signal of mea -culpa to the left by the Murdoch controlling hierarchy and their apparat to the effect . . . Forgive us for ever in the slightest way giving any air time that might question the integrity of the 2020 election, climate change, Jan 6 . . .
Lachlan and James already give lots to Democrats and now they are in a position through any decision making influence to give if not further corporate money, to signal their fealty to the cause with policy as regards reporting. Because of that fear we are content if the cancellation of Carlson will prove to be a huge corporate fail putting Fox on track to be another CNN and ushering in new venues for objective journalism.
As for Dominion we can hope that red states have learned to favor the most secure voting processes which might make Dominion’s “victory” pyric.
It is also arguably appropriate to play the left’s game while protecting the First Amendment the left is intent on subjugating to political correctness. People have been injured by media outlets cover-up and lies about Russian disinformation, arguably in itself resulting in the devastation of the Biden regime. Search them out, isolate and target, sue the left’s actors for their lies. There has been lots of real damages.
Schadenfreude an elixir for dealing with woke corporations that is good to the last drop — keep pouring please
Men — AB-InBev is responsible for insulting, denigrating your girlfriend, your wife, your sister, your daughter, your mother . . . what are you going to do about it?
Women — AB-InBev is responsible for insulting, denigrating you, your sister, your mother, your daughter . . . what are you going to do about it?
Of course other companies are just as bad but responding effectively to AB-InBev is so damn easy. It is not like you have to give up beer.
To send a message, good and long about corporate “wokeism” fostering the denigration of deep abiding culture norms do what “social change” guru Saul Alinsky would recommend: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”
AB-InBev is worried after the backlash from THEIR corporate culture having adopted a cringy transgender Dylan Mulvaney, a sick creepy male / pretend female who insults women, men and what ought to be celebrated about culture to serve as a brand ambassador for AB-InBev’s most lucrative beer brand in America. The corporation has claimed ~~ oh our overall sales are doing fine ~~ while also announcing to their American distributers an unprecedented advertising and marketing campaign in the billions in an attempt to shore up the damage — 26% loss in sales — for Bud Light.
They have not suffered nearly enough financially to make the necessary and lasting point to them and others possessing the desire to exploit culture rot.
AB-InBev has floated various excuses trying to minimize their blunder. From ~~ oh it was just one can in a PROGRAM to reach out to various elements in society that might be induced to drink their beer (establishing they have no compunction against the whole of transgender ideology) ~~ to putting on leave a couple of marketing execs who according to the hireups’ spin got carried away and should have vetted their idea (never mind that one had already revealed she had a mandate to get away from the brand being the toast of frat boys (actually she may be successful on that front) ~~ to now saying it was just one can produced by a “third-party ad agency” that they have now fired.
Each time the higherup execs throw someone under the bus when it is the corporate culture in their organization that is at fault and should be apologized for and from that make amends. That is if they want to possibly regain the market share they lost.
Molson-Coors and Miller have also partaken in ESG-BS but not that we are aware as trying to exploit, expand, normalize transgenderism. Regardless of who among their competition might undeservedly benefit, this is an opportunity to do what Dems would do, in Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals speak, make an example of AB — “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”. There are many other elements of his rules for social change that this controversy is made to order for, and that normal Americans can make happen.
The top execs at AB-InBev set the tone for this type of “innovation” and heedless marketing. AB-InBev recent ownership heritage is not American — they sold out. It is now Belgian and Brazilian ownership and the politically correct culture in those countries is pro-transgender. Belgium was one of the first in Europe (behind the Netherlands) to go all in for the trans culture and same for Brazil on that continent. We punish wrongdoers so other people won’t do that or think they can get away with such activity forever, unscathed, knowing we can’t get all or even others just as obviously guilty. Conservatives ought to do boycotts rather than reward assaults on the culture. AB is NOT the AB of old. The Mulvaney thing was totally in keeping with the new corporate culture. They have only scapegoated a VP and an ad agency and probably lied and covered up much.
Cultural denigration is the driving force behind the socio-psychosis of transgenderism. Its marketers are breeding, grooming, promoting an otherwise temporary social dysphoria victimizing certain psychologically vulnerable young people into cultural chaos. One way they undermine resistance is to promote the mocking of what it really means to be a women or a man.
Transgender adults are not victims. They still make choices in an extreme narcissistic way. How many real women act as over-the-top frivolous as these really creepy Mulvaney displays? And the Bud-Light goofball says he menstruates and A-B InBev accepts that as his truth or something. He will never be women as if wigs and silicone make one a woman. Hormones and surgery do not either. Promoting those who promote it is culturally decadent and that too is a choice. The only salvation for the AB part of AB-InBev in this country might be another sell off to perhaps a consortium of distributors here or another group of investors here that understand the American market.
A devastating example has to be made. We say an unmistakable apology, a billion dollars to promote actually female only sports and another 3 billion to promote binary parenthood. They could try making better beer as well, but that is just me. That comment is not pure snark as for now they have shut the door on people without corporate animosity until now, just different beer tastes (beer being their supposed business).
A really bad take on all of this is from Trump’s son, but moron that later.
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.
It is our view that for Republicans ballot harvesting (which necessitates pushing early voting by mail) to the extent that resources devoted to it are substituted from early sound messaging that accentuates organic economic and cultural concerns which would serve to inoculate potential voters, would largely be a counterproductive boondoggle. Early truthful and aggressive messaging suppresses stupid voting — the Democrat’s intended results for their ballot harvesting.
Our view is contra the many recent calls from presumed (or self-presumed) Republican “political realists” who contend that in order to be competitive Republicans must do as Democrats do and adopt ballot harvesting where legal or ignored. We believe it is unscrupulous as a matter of good-government because it requires a general push or zeitgeist for the approval of early voting by mail which is fraught with opportunities for fraud and other negative good-government aspects.
All the “do as Democrats do” champions need to answer this question: who are these people YOU are going to harvest ballots from and then who else is going to do it. Will they get their hands dirty because for many it is unseemly at best to hector someone into giving you their ballot?. They might respond: WHAT a simple phone call to say “we see you have not voted yet and we would like to come over and pick up your ballot, and take that burden off of you. If you cooperate you won’t get these calls anymore.” That is the essence of the message and there is a lot, mostly negative, wrapped up in that for inclined Republican voters.
Door knocks are answered maybe 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 in prime time ( surrounding the supper hour) in suburbia and less than that other hours of the day. Then there are access controlled buildings to probably not get into. So you mail all kinds of things and, horrendously, even absentee request forms that with fraud minded people might be answered and voted by someone else in the household or even the neighborhood and not necessarily by the Republican lest anyone have any doubt. Turn people against Democrats and you just may have THEM vote against the Democrat in the privacy of their home, even if it is collected by a Democrat.
Now subject that vote to multiple handlings by unsworn strangers and storage perhaps in Democrat enclaves???? And as a result when the Democrats see they do not have quite enough votes you have a system that inhibits accurate recounts because of either the practical impossibility of signature verification or the complete impossibility of it because of the purposeful disassociation of validating envelopes.
Vote by mail is a playground for mass and onesy twosy intimidation, made up votes and then continuous counting that somehow generally does not go well for Republicans. Better to restrict vote by mail as inherently fraud prone and emphasize vote in person (even if over at most a week with in-person satellite voting enabled) where there is contemporanious ID check and observation guaranteeing intimidation free privacy of the vote along with simplified and far more reliable chain of custody of the vote. Like the old days when turn-out was as high or higher than it is today.
Voting in person is more secure because ID is checked then and there, there are observers and the vote (if paper ballot) is counted or kept with a chain of custody possible. With vote by mail – you do not know who voted it, in-house onsey-twosey fraudulent votes or harangues are unimpeded, signature verification (if even performedin the jurisdiction ) is weak at best.
AB-InBev is worried after the backlash from THEIR corporate culture having adopted a cringy transgender Dylan Mulvaney, a sick creepy male / pretend female who insults women, men and what ought to be celebrated about culture to serve as a brand ambassador for AB-InBev’s most lucrative beer brand in America. The corporation has claimed ~~ oh our overall sales are doing fine ~~ while also announcing to their American distributers an unprecedented advertising and marketing campaign in the billions in an attempt to shore up the damage — 26% loss in sales — for Bud Light.