We are the drain the swamp people

DO NOT FALL FOR THEIR PROPAGANDA. THE COMMUNITY ID ADVOCATED BY QUAD CITIES INTERFAITH IS ESSENTIALLY ABOUT ILLEGAL ALIENS

THE STATE OF IOWA ALREADY ISSUES ‘COMMUNITY ID’ FOR CITIZENS AND THOSE HERE LEGALLY. WHAT QUAD CITIES INTERFAITH WANTS IS TO REGULARIZE THE PRESENCE OF ILLEGAL ALIENS SOMETHING THE STATE PROPERLY DOES NOT DO BY HAVING SCOTT COUNTY ISSUE AN ID CARD WITH THE IMPLICATIONS OF AN IMPRIMATUR.  THE EFFECT WILL BE TO ATTRACT MORE, FURTHER BURDENING THE STATE AND LOCAL WELFARE AND EDUCATION SYSTEM.

The position of Quad Cities Interfaith (hereinafter QCI) despite their pretense is neither morally superior nor practically superior as a matter of law and order in dealing with the invasion of illegals.  Their proposal is designed to unsustainably entangle our socio-economic system, rewarding illegal entry while harming by overwhelming our ability to accommodate legal immigration many of them desperate people from countries distant. Because of the lack of vetting including under “catch and release” and that the border is virtually a seive the implications for criminal and even terrorist presence among border jumpers is real. That the QCI wants the community to ignore and reward this as normative is an assault on law and order. Were their truth in labeling as to what they have in mind, something like this depiction would be more honest. Further commentary below.

This commentary is about the utility and implications of the “community ID” being pushed by Quad Cities Interfaith. That project seems to be the organization’s current main focus*. The purpose and alleged benefits they claim for the proposal are set forth below.  Our views in part are expressed as annotations to the QCI web posting.

We believe the driving force behind the move is primarily to legitimize/ regularize/ normalize the continued protrusive presumptuous (features fostered by the left) invasion of the United States by people illegally crossing our borders. They want a borderless world — pick your community, elbow your way in, in spite of laws to the contrary (this is not unsettled North America) and feel yourself at home.  Never mind the obligations the illegal entrants once fellow compatriots willingly went through.  The worst of them are content to not only overwhelm our welfare system and charitable nature but to create chaos and see our constitutional republic disintegrate. The QCI has every obligation through words and deeds to prove us wrong.

We can say this because nowhere in the Quad Cities Interfaith proposal are distinctions made between illegal “immigrants” and legal immigrants. The latter have no need for alternate identification because they are documented and are generally welcomed when known as such.

All of the reasons offered for other categories of people (citizens) supposedly in need of alternative “identification” (see their communication) fail because there is no legal citizen of the state and community that cannot get a non-expiring official state ID card. Their inclusion of legal citizens as seriously in need of a new form of ID is pretentious nonsense, and not gilding a lily, more like lipstick (a false need) on a pig, or dressing up the main intent with folderol to pump up the supposed need so as to obscure the unscrutinized purpose. It is propaganda.

But because leftists are so prone to play the race card while they make a move for ID cards to confuse illegal immigrants with everyone else,  all the while comprised of members whose associations are hostile to ID cards as proof of citizenship and residence in order to vote . . . well for the record in all of this, we support legal immigration within sustainable limits using non-racial criteria and internationally shared refugee agreements focused on regional and cultural proximity to the distressed country.

The advocacy proposal from the Quad City Interfaith web-site is  set forth in red-colored font below, our annotations in italics are offset from their statements. A brief commentary on the member organizations of Quad City Interfaith follows along with a modest proposal to placate their spurious, overwrought at best concerns.

https://qcinterfaith.org/issues/scott-county-community-id/

Scott County Community ID
qcinterfaith.org/issues/scott-county-community-id

Members of Quad Cities Interfaith identified the need for a Scott County Community ID. This ID would serve all residents of Scott County to access some of the most basic social and economic aspects of life. Note they say all residents not citizens of  the county. Our leaders have been working diligently in spreading the word about the benefits of a Community ID. We have gathered signatures from directly impacted people, businesses, organizations, and faith groups all who see the good implementing a Scott County Community ID would do.

They have been “spreading the word” means there has not been objective debate, rather QCI starts with a view and is out spreading it. 

Between digital and physical signatures, we have gathered the support of over 100 individual and institutional supporters. You can join us by signing on as a supporter ready to take action by signing HERE or reach out to us to get more involved in the fight for justice.

Given the organization’s supposed potential reach we would be unimpressed even if it was a much larger number, however, that the number of churches and other organizations involved has only produced a hundred names which includes individuals reflecting the supposed crying need for this project and  benefiting from it were it to be implemented, we are especially unimpressed.  We also do not consider “justice” to be on the affirmative to this issue.

Pass a Scott County IA Community ID Now

As signers in support of the Scott County Community ID, we believe its implementation would benefit all residents, businesses, organizations and government entities in the county. We call on Scott County to implement an identification card accessible to all Scott County residents.

Once again there is that term “residents”, not legal residents, just residents. And once again the State of Iowa already uses the term “Community ID” for the official state issued identification for those who do not drive and legally reside in the community.  

Why is this important?

In Iowa, a county may issue a Community ID – a verifiable, official photo identification card – that would make aspects of life more accessible to all county residents. A Scott County Community ID would make it possible for county residents to participate in the economic and social life of our county. We can make Scott County a more welcoming and inviting place to all people by providing a basic right that many take for granted: a right to an identity.

QCI does not offer an example of how possession of what they advocate enables participation in economic and social life that is not already available to legal residents, how it would be an improvement over identification that is already available to them, or services and opportunities not improperly denied them. Nor do they explain how such a “community ID” would be more welcomed than say an easily available state issued ID,  or a green card, or an entry or tourist visa all of which require their presence here be of a legal nature and might include some vetting.  The QCI does not explain how the melodramatic use of the term “right to an identity” is at issue. Even if they have lost everything, US citizens can obtain a reliable official ID if they  have any recollection of where they were born and some corroborating indications.  As citizens they have a right to get and show a reliable state-issued ID valid throughout the US.  Citizens of foreign nations here legally will have an ID and can obtain a replacement for a lost ID from official agencies here or their country of origin. By and large illegal aliens here have an ID, it just happens to show they are citizens of another country. Illegals just refuse to go through  the process necessary to obtain what would acknowledge their legal presence in this country. The QCI “community ID” offers nothing other than to purposely homogenize legal and illegal presence. 

Many community members are unable to acquire a traditional form of identification.

How many are we talking? Regardless it is a false statement as regards people here legally. People here illegally are not properly referred to as community members if law abiding has any relevance to “community”.   

This ID would be especially beneficial to vulnerable populations, such as citizens returning to the community after incarceration, people experiencing homelessness, people with expired forms of identification unable to travel great distances to renew, senior citizens and immigrants.

Balderdash as to citizens “returning to the community after incarceration” — they only need to ask their parole officer for help, or present themselves to the local Iowa DMV.

Balderdash as to “people experiencing homelessness”  — citizens can get a replacement ID by presenting themselves to the Iowa DMV for guidance and issuance.

Balderdash as to “(citizens) with expired forms of identification unable to travel great distances to renew” — So are they going to travel to the Scott County Administration center under the QCI proposed rubric or will QCI take care of that for them? In which case take them to the local Iowa DMV instead for a proper ID. 

Balderdash as to “senior citizens”  for the same reasons set forth above

Aha – immigrants — this is what this is all about and not legal immigrants who are under a pretty serious obligation to keep their ID with them  (that is what “countries” do) and who have avenues for obtaining replacements for their lost ID. It is all about illegal immigrants. We cringe at the term immigrants applied to illegal aliens indiscriminately. We know legal immigrants and appreciate their natures immensely.  Illegal aliens insult them, our laws and abuse America’s good nature.

Note: Not numbered in the original but to help with easing the flow of reading the QCI statement we have applied numbers in brackets after each of their statements within the paragraph which we respond to afterwords. 

(1) all want to feel safe as we go about our daily lives. (2) Scott County Community ID would benefit law enforcement in keeping the community secure and building trust with community members . (3) who witness traffic accidents or are victims of crimes are more willing to communicate and cooperate with the police when they have an ID card that they know the police will accept . (4) A community ID could eliminate time-consuming searches through police databases when a police officer is dealing with someone who is unable to obtain a state-issued ID. (5) community ID would provide law enforcement with proof of a person’s identity, which could, under certain circumstances, avoid an arrest and trip to jail. (6) example is a traffic stop. If the driver does not have a driver’s license but has a community ID card, the officer has the option to write a citation instead of taking the person to jail. This would save time and resources .

(1) Yes we do want to feel save and not having unvetted illegal “immigrants” interspersed in the community would be nice (not to mention the drain on social service resources). The QCI proposal does not involve vetting —  it seems to be a shall issue proclamation (shall issue gun permits for citizens actually have extensive vetting processes) and that does not allow for investigation into immigrant status or possibly even recording it or sharing anything with law enforcement agencies.  There is nothing safety enhancing about this proposal.

(2) QCI Statements 2 – 6 have absolutely no relevance outside of illegal aliens. As we have pointed out citizens and those here legally can get state issued “community ID” This is about illegal aliens who will not be issued a state ID because they are not lawfully here.

(3) OK let’s talk about trust. As far as building trust with the police it is insulting to law enforcement to suggest that police should think a shall-issue “ID” card with no vetting behind it is something seriously dependable for anything –  actual name, actual residence — especially when the person is by the proposed regulation not to be made part of a searchable database shared with other law enforcement agencies. Quoting QCI “We emphasize that it cannot be used by police or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to target individuals.” (see context below).

As far as seniors, the formerly incarcerated, the homeless any of the citizen categories the QCI ridiculously uses to embellish their call for their “community ID,” all here legally with more reliable forms of ID readily available to them, how are they more likely to come forward with a QCI card in their pocket?  It is of course irrelevant one way or another. Yet the QCI propagandists spend most of their time with scenarios that they know affect only those who are here illegally without saying or admitting the whole thing is about illegal aliens. How can the QCI be trusted when they exercise such opacity.

As for illegals being willing to come forward to report crimes while protected from their own continued misdeeds, indeed allowed to continue on their course, how does that enhance trust in the legal system overall?  The QCI is maneuvering to install a get out jail or immunity card of some sort for certain wrongdoing, something no other country would be likely to afford a non-citizen. It is an accommodation not offered so carte blanche to citizens without considerable individualized due process of law. It amounts to ~~ we will disregard your fraud on America if you report on a traffic accident or crime ~~ and you are a fine upstanding person other than that whole fraud and embezzlement of community resources thing.

  QCI is calling for a scenario that supposedly builds trust in American law by ignoring its law . . . that American law need not be appreciated ( and of course isn’t really appreciated by the “undocumented” anyway by virtue of them being here illegally).

The huge influx of illegal aliens and their regularization does not make the community safer for citizens OR non-citizens, here legally or not. Crime either reported or unreported, or ignored, goes up with the presence of illegal aliens. ID card does not make one more trustworthy one way or the other. Under the rubric QCI calls for an illegal alien gangbanger can get the card — how does that increase trust?  One could be skeptical that the issuance of such a card will increase reporting to police but it may inhibit police from doing a proper investigation of crimes.

4) This is nonsense.  Illegal entrants skipped that part at the border. The proposal is about creating a firewall disallowing searches for possible connections or providing data on individual non-citizens who may be part of facilitating organized crime — trafficking drugs people and other offenses

5)  The “community ID is  “proof” of nothing anymore than what a 3 by 5 note card offered with  contact information from the illegal alien could provide  (essentially our modest proposal)

6) We are not sure that the #6 statement has any relevance even to illegals. Most traffic stops where a license violation is discovered results in a citation with the driver of the vehicle being told to summon a licensed driver to clear the street of the vehicle.  The driver is not normally jailed for non- possession of a license but will have to produce it to avoid the fine or jail for chronic offenses.

By the way will QCI be advocating for banks and other financial institutions to be forced to give illegal aliens aka “undocumented residents” loans risking depositor resources?  How dare they redline illegal aliens entitled to equal treatment – THEY HAVE AN ID!!

A Scott County community ID card could be used to:

Open a bank account
Confirm one’s identity when using credit cards
Pick up prescriptions at the pharmacy
Provide proof of identity for leases and utilities
Obtain a library card
Return items to the store
Report a crime
Interact with schools, hospitals, civic and community organizations and law enforcement

There they go again. None of these are difficult to initiate  for an honest person who is legally present because of the readily available state issued drivers license OR state issued “community ID” . These things are not serious hurdles for people who entered the country legally and took the time for proper readily available identification.  The inclusion of “return items to the store” seems ridiculously bogus unless the illegal is unfamiliar with a receipt.  The items listed expose the QCI effort as focussed on making illegal entry a more and more comfortable proposition. The list is clearly intended to regularize and normalize disregard for immigration laws and national borders. 

A Scott County community ID card would not substitute for a driver’s license. It cannot be used to prove employment eligibility, vote, board an airplane, purchase alcohol or tobacco or enter establishments with age restrictions. We emphasize that it cannot be used by police or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to target individuals. 

Not a substitute for a driver’s license — but the same liberal mindset would like to provide them with one. They add their note card  “cannot be used to prove employment eligibility” — now that is an interesting assertion with more to unpack than time available in this already lengthy post. Suffice it to say — then how are they getting their money relevant to items in the litany above?  As for voting — wait for it.  We believe this conglomeration of leftist activists would advocate for that very thing. Their ideology requires it.

They add assuringly that their ID would not authorize “the purchase of alcohol or tobacco or enter establishments with age restrictions”. Wow what a concession.  Of course a state issued ID would not authorize such in and of itself either. If they clearly look the age they will likely be sold or admitted to whatever QCI is broken up about, just like legal residents are. That is commerce in this country.  Now a tattoo on the forehead for all underage residents might be helpful. 

The closing statement in their paragraph above is the dead give away to what this is all about –  give illegals the benefits of ordinary residency, normalize it,  and create a data fire wall to inhibit lawful identification and deportation which would if implemented allow for more legal immigrants. If it were not for this provision, and other policies inhibiting law enforcement and other institutions from acting to enforce the law on illegal immigration that exist,  one might make the case that nothing says illegal alien more than possession of the card.

Other Iowa counties have successfully implemented community ID programs, such as Johnson, Marshall and Story counties. Community members in Polk County are in the process of asking county officials to implement the community ID. Scott County can also join in recognizing that everyone in our community has the right to an identity.

Here QCI is trying for a bandwagon approach (albeit with one snare drum): to have other counties join with the most Democrat controlled counties (or in one case meat-packer county) to accommodate such nonsense.  However the only county we found that has such a provision is Johnson, home of the University of Iowa. At this writing we could not find a newspaper reference to such a program in Story (Iowa State University) or Marshall (a county perhaps under the influence of a meat packing industry notorious for attracting cheaper illegal “residents” and shifting true costs of their presence to the welfare system of the state and federal government).  If these other counties do indeed have such provisions we would not be surprised and will append this commentary.

Related reading:

https://qctimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/quad-cities-interfaith-scott-county-residents-ask-for-county-id/article_dea4fadc-930d-5b40-89c1-670f49158bb5.html

Who or what is Quad Cities Interfaith?

You can see their listed member organizations at their Web site.

They are:

Metropolitan Community Church of the Quad Cities
Sacred Heart Cathedral, Davenport
Davenport Diocese
St. Paul the Apostle Catholic Church, Davenport
Edwards Congregational Church, UCC, Davenport
NAACP Metro Branch #4019, Davenport
UFCW -United Food and Commercial Workers Union 431
Ambrosians for Peace and Justice
Third Missionary Baptist Church
Church of Peace, UCC of Rock Island, IL
15th Avenue Christian Church, Rock Island, IL
First Christian Church/Disciple Women
Our Lady of Lourdes, Bettendorf
Sacred Heart Catholic Parish Church, Moline
Sisters of the Order of St. Benedict/St. Mary’s Monastery
St. John Vianney. Bettendorf
St. John’s Lutheran Church, Rock Island
St. Paul Catholic, Clinton
St. Anthony Catholic Church, Davenport
Unitarian Universalist Congregation of the Quad Cities
QC Federation of Labor
Faith United Church of Christ,
First Evangelical Lutheran Church, Rock Island, IL
Hope United Church of Christ, Moline, IL
First Presbyterian Church, Davenport, IA
Black Student Union SCC

It struck us as interesting that the members are not listed alphabetically, the first church listed being the Metropolitan Community Church of the Quad Cities. That it would be the lead organization might be a statement on its own.  At a glance it was also noticeable that there are not a lot of member churches. Their website lists 26 member organizations while there are probably several hundred churches and church organizations in the geographical area we would presume eligible if “Interfaith” is really an accurate description rather than “leftist”. It would seem a lot of denominations, actual churches or church organizations have apparently declined to join the “we speak for the faith community” (by a majority vote?)  organization.

Five of the listed would not be considered ecclesiastical. While certainly union members presumably have faith of sorts (dominated by government)  we were not aware that most union meetings even opened with a prayer.  Maybe the listed union organizations do but unless the Quad City Federation of Labor (which is listed) ropes in all unions, in which case all 72 members of their organization might be listed to fluff up the ecclesiastical ranks, we worry about the  heathen carpenters, electricians, steel workers, etc. for not clamoring to be individually listed as part of this faith group.

We note that the QCI member listing is dominated by Roman Catholic connected organizations (9) while no other denomination is close in number. We have no idea as to degree of involvement, who they send, although we can guess how one parish might become a member and another decline. We do not presume these are necessarily votes of the parish councils or the members of the congregation. There are two RC dioceses that encompass the Quad Cities but only one chose to be a part of QCI.   Only two RC organizations listed are located in Illinois.  We note the Davenport Diocese is run by a liberal bishop but not the Peoria Diocese. Maybe the Peoria Diocese is listed in a similar organization in Peoria. Individual parish membership is obviously allowed and obviously not overwhelmingly present.

We note no Jewish, Muslim, Hindu membership but they are probably busy with other liberal organizations.   The best QCI can do is claim some liberal Christian churches (if we are not offending any of them by referring to them as Christian) and some unions regardless of the desires of their memberships and of course the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of the Quad Cities which is probably an official member of every leftist cause in the Quad Cities as is the Metropolitan Community Church of the Quad Cities).

In summary Quad City Interfaith is not so interfaith as they might pretend. There are no what might be properly considered conservative Protestant denominations and the individual RC parish membership might be more nominal, legacy but not active, and not all that reflective of their congregants.

Our modest proposal

Rather than the proposed slick squatter affirmation card proposed by QCI we suggest something like a   3 x 5 note card, printed in English with accurate information, would suffice to take care of the concerns about law enforcement’s needs.  Perhaps QCI could be prevailed upon to laminate them and to encourage the sojourners illegal entrant squatters they are irresponsibly attracting, the ones supposedly being denied a right to identification, to carry it along side the one they carried from their country of origin. Perhaps a return address label from somewhere to “authenticate them” would be a nice touch.  It would be just as authoritative, just as “vetted” as what they propose for a Scott County issued “community ID.”

Were someone appreciative of the QCI effort as regards (Scott County) “Community ID” to stumble on this commentary and like to respond, please do.

0

0

• You know the story already Bud Light partners with trans activist Dylan Mulvaney.  
• Reaction has been widespread in conservative commentariat: Bud Light: The Drag Queen Of Beers.    See additional links at end pf article
• While it is not the only one, we see mega-corporation Anheuser-Busch InBev as a super-spreader of cultural pathology  
• A modest proposal for those in tune with mutilating body parts 

To belabor the analogy: The immune response (us) should not be to ignore their marketing and consume their products but to quarantine them, so to speak, so that they do not have the pathway (resources) to infect the non-immune.  While pathogens, culturally destructive or indifferent marketers targeting cell (demographic) types will always be lurking about looking for infectious avenues, some more acutely pathogenic than others, they can “learn” to be at peace with the body. They can be “learned”  not to mock or insult womanhood (and manhood in the process) — the inherent, irreplaceable irreducible components of culture.

IN OTHER WORDS BOYCOTT THE BASTARDS AND THE CLYDESDALES THEY RODE IN ON.  Boycott Anheuser-Busch InBev products.  They make nothing one can’t do without.  They have offered themselves up as a representative of the mass-marketing woke corporate culture. Let then reap the whirlwind  For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk: the bud shall yield no meal Prophetic? We hope so.

Don’t let this be as Twitter commenter @FiveTimesAugust mentioned at GoWokeGoBroke

All they want is for you to talk about their brand, that’s why these “go woke go broke” brands don’t care. You’re talking about it, they win. Why? Because they know after a few weeks you’ll forget and start buying their product again. Remember when you swore you’d stop watching…

By the way GoWokeGoBroke is a worthy and fun effort to expose and resist so many product corporations’ presumptuousness of being some sort of change agents in AB-INBev’s case with really warped cultural assaults.

While we agree with the observation about cynicism in corporate marketing departments, the ~~as long as they spell our name right ~~  approach bone-headed marketing of a product particularly subject to sentiment with close competition is no winning strategy. The lesson needs to be that such cynicism will not carry the day and to give pause to other marketing departments who are so tempted. The other lesson is that pure marketing stupidity needs to be punished.

They need to feel the economic pain for using the money they make from western culture to assault that culture.  We note that AB-INBev and their “market segmentation” would not go over big in Islam, China, Russia. But let’s see these brave marketers dress up a beer can with a Dylan type and peddle it outside of western decadence. But even in our increasingly jaded culture surely that which surrounds beer will resist. Red-blooded actual beer drinkers are the vanguard in America, not superficial jingoistic equally creepy marketing departments personified by this Bud Light brand leader: Oh, So That’s Why Bud Light Decided to Destroy Its Brand

Maybe Spuds was a bull terrier dyke?

We all remember Spuds MacKenzie — turns out Bud Light foisted that critter on us as a male. Now to be sure we doubt the real canine actually identified as male — that was the company imposing their gender wishes on the fur baby. To use AB new standards, sadly “Spuds” (real name “Evie”) and her sex were kept hidden and the fur baby had no choice in the matter.

AB can’t hide Mulvaney’s sex as well as they did Spud’s née Evie . He looks like a heavily made up slightly built man parading about in pre-teen and pre-teen dress-up clothing.  He has no natural features of a female. He acts like a six year old, certainly not a woman.  He and AB are insulting women. Evie never did that.

There are signs that Bud Light brand is feeling the adverse reaction to the insult to the their customer base. Beer, in our humble judgement, was given to us to celebrate culture not abuse of women or men or what it means to be either.

But in line with the earlier observation, AB-In Bev can write off one brand,  perhaps come up with a cynical sop to real womanhood or manhood. Watch for it in their other products or perhaps even a hugely expensive effort to shift the subject or something. Let’s not let it work until corporate profits, the life blood of this stuff is adequately shed.

Modest proposal

An intellectual exercise regarding transgenderism and organ donation.

Yes our opinion is that transgenderism is mixed nuts — nutty immature males that think they want to cut them off and nutty woman that say they want them because they think fake ones will make them male. It’s delusional in both cases. As regards the latter a lot of Democrat males have them but it does not make them men. Trans activists might say that proves their point. So maybe it is true. The Democrat party is the transition party. Men enter it because of the attraction of loosing theirs to socialism and having the government be the primary care-giver for their infantile mind-set. They want affirmation for whatever they want to do, as long as it is culturally destructive of course, and to have others pay for it.  They get pissy about it if they do not get their way and can turn into bull dykes, some with male genitalia, some with out. Mostly the latter.

OK we are off track a bit, back to the possibility of getting sex organ donors and recipients together in a swap meet or something.

What an Alice and Alex in Wonderland it would be. You would have sadistic doctors, not unlike abortionists who excel at mutilating human beings and selling or brokering organs.  And then you would have (albeit unlike abortions) supposedly willing donors, (unborn babies having no choice in their painful “donations”/mutilations).

Then again the degree of willingness of the “patient”  in transgender surgery is disputable based on the wholistic truth that those desiring organ mutilation in pursuit of the absolute chimera of changing sexes are really screwed up. But like in the case of abortion they’re being really evil people willing to accommodate them.  Never mind that as in the case with abortion you can rip the baby out of the womb but not out of the psyche, same for sex organs.

Those infected with the social contagion of sexual dysphoria, (the amount of this psychosis was not present in past decades) most of which would dissipate were it not iatrogenically aggravated and socially affirmed  — sort of like covid mortality actually being enhanced by the health “experts” pushing repeated “boosting” of a gene “therapy” poison corruptly referred to as a vaccine.  Democrat enclaves (also a social disease) pushing to be meccas for sex reassignment organ mutilations. These doctors and politicians really do think they are God.  Oh sorry, off on tangents again.

Invoking the old saw, a sadist is a masocist’s best friend, the transgender acceptance thing is a Wonderland because there you would have sadists and masocists together doing their thing with an audience of ever-so-woke affirming family and friends (pretty much just as sick as the main actors).  It is such theater rejecting, mocking God’s plan. One willing to cut out their God given / naturally given sex organ,  a desire akin to masochism,  and their “best friend” sadistic doctors and powerful God rejecting elements of society in support.

As social statements, and cultural assaults there can few more egregious assaults on God and culture than abortion and transgenderism being exalted as they are.

Bud Light’s new spokes is a man who claims to be a woman. Real women do not act like this creep. He is not even a caricature of womanhood (transgenders and drag queens are not women) he is a representation of a sick transient social phenomena that is trying to gain acceptance and normalcy in a way that denigrates manliness and womanliness and society.

The whole drag thing was never funny, just cringy. The transgender thing is deeply sick. That a major corporation elected to use this degenerate (he still has moral agency) to represent their product — not just coincidently as someone with a weird but unheralded background but BECAUSE he is a sick celebrity flaunting his illness.  Upon examination by normal people he is  sociopathic (harmful to society) and insulting to womanhood and manhood. The marketers don’t care. They have engaged in an assault on culture and everything good about beer.

This issue and its current prominence and its resolve indicates a lot.  But enough for one post. We will continue with some more later.

0

0

Touting only the part of a poll that indicates a dramatic Trump lead as regards the Republican nomination is misleading as regards key political sentiment

Asking Republicans who they think is more likely to beat presumed Democrat nominee Joe Biden ought to be the companion question and revelation to who they think will win the nomination.  The two questions are definitely not the same or possess the same assurance from respondents

Points to consider regarding who leads in the race for the 2024 Republican  nomination for president

The specific questions asked of respondents — are they leading or unnecessarily limited, do they ask enough to get a decent snapshot off the sentiment

The people whose responses are reported — are they registered Republicans, are they likely primary voters, does the poll include Democrats and independents proffering their opinion on what Republicans will do, who they think Republicans will pick

Are the respondents independently aware of who is or might be seeking the nomination — an open question vs the pollster reading a list might only result in a skewed response toward the most recognized name which this early in the process is not very predictive of the eventual nominee or general election victor.

Any poll indicating whatever margin this early is not likely to hold up to an engaged active primary complete with debates, rallies, campaigning of various sorts.

Is there anything unusual going on that might skew results the effect of which might largely dissipate

Various media outlets and the Trump campaign have amplified recent polls indicating Trump is supposedly pulling away from DeSantis even though he remains an unannounced candidate. Perhaps as a snapshot in time there has been such movement although many questions arise dictated by the above points about such polling regarding  the Republican nomination.

The commentaries from the right and even some from the left suggest that news of the atrocious political indictment orchestrated by the leftist Manhattan District Attorney against Trump regarding accounting for hush money paid to end false stories about Trump  put out by a publicity seeking porn star — have backfired on the left only to increase Trump’s standing in the polls and nomination prospects. Or have they.

The backfire theory — as in undesired result theory — depends on a correct reading of what “the left” wants currently. It could be one thing and another, or if not one thing, another. We can only guess what goes in the minds of Marxists, but here goes:

The rabid left that wants to see Trump perp-walked in the belief it will hamstring him and Republicans — they are the element originally driving the “lets get Trump” bandwagon that Manhattan DA Bragg had been resisting. But what if the sober left, seeing the tea leaves shaking out just on the rumors and early leaks of the grand jury probe — what if that shake out appeared to be Trump climbing and DeSantis falling  . . . and that is what they really want.

What if they decided ~~ ‘hey we beat Trump by locking our criminal but useful idiot candidate in his basement and the fact is our electoral college strategy of cheat-to-win in key states is still intact thanks in part (to their way of thinking) Trump’s turnout appeal (negative for swing voters = positive for them).’  These  Democrats feel that the 2022 red tsunami did not appear because they successfully tied Republicans to Trump — not Trump policies – but Trump — the “Drama Queen from Queens”  “The Anti-Democracy Insurrectionist”  “The Orange Man Racist” . . .

Our view is that the overwhelming reason Republicans did not do better, especially in the House but also elsewhere, is that Republicans were ineffective in dealing with early voting (inoculating early voters with aggressive messaging, frankly, demonizing Democrat policies for what they are — demonic). Campaigns that are not full throttle in mid-summer only allow lots of time for dominant leftist media outlets to beat up on Republicans inoculating the populace before they turn to early voting “projects”..

Democrats know there will not be a sympathy vote for Trump they cannot contain in the battleground states and the rest they do not care about as far as the presidency.  That and that their usual “turn-out” tools (legitimate or not) will still be available for effective use.  In this scenario, if Trump does not get the nomination they lose some of the negative messaging power they think effective along with the prospect of  Trump’s penchant for saying questionable things to Republican detriment down ticket as well.

Now to be sure many Republicans think Trump is the only candidate that can win the general, the only one who can unite or appeal to the little guy, increase turnout, adding Hispanics and Blacks . . . the only one with the energy and cajones to take on the Democrats. They see the polls surrounding the indictment news as sustaining their view.  They believe such polls reflect a coalescence now and forever indicating Trump is the candidate to win.

If the left does not already know how unsustainable the charges against Trump are, even if the case collapses because the trial judge throws it out or any conviction is devastated on appeal — as long as they have helped bring Trump over the nomination finish line (because a lot of Republicans feel sorry for Trump) they still have more negative sentiment to exploit regarding Trump than they would with DeSantis or perhaps another emerging top tier candidate.  Now we are of the opinion at this very early time that DeSantis is the only one with the horsepower (all factors) to rival Trump and less negatives necessary to win — a track record and political finesse.  We know the sentiment for much Trump support is that politics is professional wrestling — but what if it is a little more mixed martial arts?

For the left there is also the internal twofer of the indictment pursuit.  Perhaps the Democrat movers/manipulators in charge know that the Biden crime family is very vulnerable as to the mounting evidence emanating in part from Hunter’s “lap-top from hell.”  They need as much mud out there, true or not, to help with their Republicans are worse rhetoric. Having Trump lead the ticket enables their mud slinging about his family members lobbying activities post 2020. There is likely nothing illegal in them but they just need the “they do it too” optics. It is easier to defend Joe or Democrats with controversy regarding Trumps family.

They may well be fooling themselves and we would help to establish that should Trump get the nomination. —  but they won a lot of votes for president in 2020 and they didn’t need to cheat in every state to roll up a lot of popular and electoral votes.  Their “mechanisms” are still largely in place in battleground states — Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, Michigan and they will adapt in other perceived marginal states.

No matter who the nominee becomes, Republicans need to inoculate enough voters who continue to vote early for some ungodly reason so that more of the ballots collected by Democrats are not exclusively Democrat and to use lawfare to prevent fraudulent balloting.

This post has gotten too long so we will get into the specifics of some recent polls that on the one hand indicate Trump leads substantially as to the predicted or favored Republican nominee but not nearly so, and even inferior as to public opinion as who is more likely to beat Biden. That will be Part 2.2 of DeSantis or Trump, Trump or DeSantis.

And everyone should keep in mind we are trying to predict Leftist gamers thought processes and that of a not very well informed populace (Democrats and America’s mushy middle). Things regarding the Biden prospects could blow up for Democrats but their mechanisms are still in place to “help” whoever claims their baton. We think Republicans should concentrate on inoculation and motivation — the superior turn-out and ballot assurance mechanism.

0

0

• Trump derangement syndrome rules
• We didn’t think the Dems would pull the trigger, the implications too hard to predict or control
• Trump’s statement, DeSantis statement and other links

A process that allows “a ham sandwich to be indicted” because of totally one-sided presentation of supposed law to non-lawyer civilians on a matter has huge potential for abuse and the Manhattan District attorney’s  wielding of it to get Trump will go done as the hornbook example of such abuse.    Maybe Democrat powers-that-be controlling this partisan hack thought they had to double down in spite of  the whole justification being widely criticized across the political spectrum. The actual indictment if issued by the prosecutor and not quashed for its outrageousness by a judge will allow Trump to rattle the chains of oppression with stark clarity for months as a rallying cry against the one-sided political hatchet job it is.

President Trump’s statement in response:

“This is Political Persecution and Election Interference at the highest level in history. From the time I came down the golden escalator at Trump Tower, and even before I was sworn in as your President of the United States, the Radical Left Democrats – the enemy of the hard-working men and women of this Country – have been engaged in a Witch-Hunt to destroy the Make America Great Again movement. You remember it just like I do: Russia, Russia, Russia; the Mueller Hoax; Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine; Impeachment Hoax 1; Impeachment Hoax 2; the illegal and unconstitutional Mar-a-Lago raid; and now this.

“The Democrats have lied, cheated and stolen in their obsession with trying to ‘Get Trump,’ but now they’ve done the unthinkable – indicting a completely innocent person in an act of blatant Election Interference.

“Never before in our Nation’s history has this been done. The Democrats have cheated countless times over the decades, including spying on my campaign, but weaponizing our justice system to punish a political opponent, who just so happens to be a President of the United States and by far the leading Republican candidate for President, has never happened before. Ever.

“Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, who was hand-picked and funded by George Soros, is a disgrace. Rather than stopping the unprecedented crime wave taking over New York City, he’s doing Joe Biden’s dirty work, ignoring the murders and burglaries and assaults he should be focused on. This is how Bragg spends his time!

“I believe this Witch-Hunt will backfire massively on Joe Biden. The American people realize exactly what the Radical Left Democrats are doing here. Everyone can see it. So our Movement, and our Party – united and strong – will first defeat Alvin Bragg, and then we will defeat Joe Biden, and we are going to throw every last one of these Crooked Democrats out of office so we can MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

DeSantis as chief administrator of law enforcement in the state: Florida won’t cooperate with Trump extradition (via The Floridian)

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican, said Thursday that the indictment of former President Trump was “un-American” and that the state would not support extradition requests.

“Weaponizing the legal system to advance the political agenda is upending the rule of law. tweeted.

“The Soros-backed Manhattan District Attorney has consistently bent the law to downgrade felonies and allow criminal activity. But now he is expanding the law to target political opponents. DeSantis continued, adding that the state of Florida would not support extradition requests “given the questionable circumstances at issue.”

Related links via Liberty Daily (their link descriptors):

Alan Dershowitz on Sham Trump Indictment: ‘They’ve Made a Foolish, Foolish Decision’ [VIDEO]

Jason Whitlock Reacts to Bogus Trump Indictment: ‘I’ve Never Voted But Tonight I’m Hardcore MAGA’ [VIDEO]

Trump Family Reacts to Indictment: ‘Communist-Level Shit’

Democrats React to Trump’s Bogus Indictment, Repeating Insincere ‘No One Is Above the Law’ Trope

Tucker Carlson Lays Out Trump Indictment: What We Know and What to Expect

Professional Whore Stormy Daniels Is Selling Merchandise, Autographs Off of Phony Trump Indictment, Worries About ‘Spilling My Champagne’

Jesse Watters Tells Sen. Josh Hawley That Lawmakers Must Show ‘Some Sort of Resistance’ After Bogus Trump Indictment

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy Vows to Hold Soros-Bankrolled Alvin Bragg ‘And His Unprecedented Abuse of Power to Account’

‘Political Prosecution’: Legal Experts Rail Against Bogus Trump Indictment

Kari Lake Breathes Fire on Radical Left After Trump Indictment Announcemen

Pelosi Perverts American Justice System of Law, Insinuates Trump Is Guilty Until Proven Innocent

Pelosi Perverts American Justice System of Law, Insinuates Trump Is Guilty Until Proven Innocent

Trump Indictment Is Biden-Harris Regime’s “Nuclear Option” in the War on America

. . . Kitchen Sink: CNN Analyst Claims Trump Being Indicted on 34 COUNTS

0

0

• In today’s world “bi-partisan” legislation always ought to be under suspicion as the product of big-government uni-party

From Americans for Limited Government:  (our comments follow) 

S.686, the Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act or the appropriately titled “RESTRICT Act” could be used to censor any website in America, not just TikTok.

The legislation would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to “identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, or otherwise mitigate, including by negotiating, entering into, or imposing, and enforcing any mitigation measure to address any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that the Secretary determines… poses an undue or unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States…”

Read that again. It says “by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States…” That could be anything.

Or any website that is determined to be “interfering in, or altering the result or reported result of a Federal election, as determined in coordination with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Treasury, and the Federal Election Commission…”

Meaning, it would potentially become illegal to question the “reported result” of any federal election, since questioning the results could potentially “interfere” with public acceptance of the result. How else does one “interfere” with the “reported result” of a federal election?

Or any website that opposes a war with a foreign adversary by “steer[ing] policy and regulatory decisions in favor of the strategic objectives of a foreign adversary to the detriment of the national security of the United States…” since merely advocating against the war would “favor” the foreign adversary’s objectives.

By definition, this would prohibit anti-war activities on the internet.

Censorship in the U.S. during wartime is not at all unprecedented. Nor is it unique to the U.S., since war against adversaries foreign and domesitc is almost always the pretext for censorship.

World War I, World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War all had various measures employed to control speech and punish wrongthink. And it’s always arbitrary. The Espionage Act of 1917, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2388, for example very similarly prohibits anti-war reports or even to simply oppose the draft “willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military … [or] wilfully obstruct the recruitment or enlistment service of the United States.”

This looks like an attempt to codify the so-called “bad tendency” test that was used to prosecute individuals under the Espionage Act. The Supreme Court upheld this test in the 1919 Debs v. United States decision which found “natural tendency and reasonably probable effect to obstruct the recruiting service, &c., and unless the defendant had the specific intent to do so in his mind…” Other decisions would also uphold provisions of the Espionage Act until the Supreme Court outlined the “imminent danger” test in Brandburg v. Ohio in 1969, finding that even advocacy of overthrowing the government could be protected speech if they were not immediately linked to violent actions to do so.

Brandeburg stated “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Arguably, the RESTRICT Act goes even further, since the standard would become anything in “favor… the strategic objectives of a foreign adversary….” not only prohibiting those who are not even anti-war per se, but favor a diplomatic approach to resolving foreign disputes.

So, if you were a news or non-profit organization that opposed, say, a thermonuclear war and advocated for peace or nuclear arms reduction treaties to avert an existential threat to humanity, it could be prohibited because those also might “favor… the strategic objectives of a foreign adversary,” even if you believed that such treaties might actually bolster U.S. national security.

All that would be needed would be for the Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Treasury, and the Federal Election Commission, to determine otherwise.

Obviously, this all directly violates the First Amendment’s prohibition that “Congress shall make no law…. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

The website does not even need to be owned directly by a foreign government, like China, or one of its organs, like the Chinese Communist Party. Instead, a controlling interest, or “covered holding” is defined as “regardless of how or when such holding was or will be obtained or otherwise come to have been held, a controlling holding held, directly or indirectly, in an ICTS covered holding entity by… a foreign adversary…”

Read that again. It states “directly or indirectly,” which opens the door for non-state-owned holdings.

But then it goes further, providing for targeting “any other holding, the structure of which is designed or intended to evade or circumvent the application of this Act, subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary.” That could be anything.

The legislation covers “wireless local area networks; mobile networks; satellite payloads; satellite operations and control; cable access points; wireline access points; core networking systems; long-, short-, and back-haul networks; or edge computer platforms; internet hosting services; cloud-based or distributed computing and data storage; machine learning, predictive analytics, and data science products and services, including those involving the provision of services to assist a party utilize, manage, or maintain open-source software; managed services; content delivery services; internet- or network-enabled sensors, webcams, end-point surveillance or monitoring devices, modems and home networking devices… unmanned vehicles, including drones and other aerials systems, autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles, or any other product or service integral to the provision, maintenance, or management of such products or services… desktop applications; mobile applications; gaming applications; payment applications; web-based applications; information and communications technology products and services integral to… artificial intelligence and machine learning; quantum key distribution; quantum communications; quantum computing; post-quantum cryptography; autonomous systems; advanced robotics; biotechnology; synthetic biology; computational biology; and e-commerce technology and services, including any electronic techniques for accomplishing business transactions, online retail, internet-enabled logistics, internet-enabled payment technology, and online marketplaces” if such websites, applications or platforms have more than 1 million users or has sold more than 1 million products in the U.S.

Which is actually quite easy to do if you host a platform. Say, you host an e-commerce multivendor platform that has 1,000 vendors who each have 1,000 customers annually. Each one of them is relatively small, but in the aggregate, that adds up to more than a million products sold.

It pretty much covers the entire internet.

But where the rubber meets the road will simply be on web hosts, especially the large ones that small businesses depend on, which easily have more than 1 million customers. So, even if the intent were to censor a smaller entity, the pressure could simply instead be put on the company’s web host to remove the content or else be dubbed a foreign traitor and lose everything.

Naturally, the bill has strong bipartisan support and is supported by President Joe Biden. And why not? It could be used to censor almost anything, including Trump’s 2020 election challenge or even Trump’s 2016 candidacy, which the Justice Department argued in the Oct. 2016 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant applications was favored by Russia.

In any event, if the purpose of the legislation was to simply target TikTok, China and the Chinese Communist Party, why does it in fact potentially cover every single website in America? In fact, the legislation is not narrowly tailored to forcing divestiture of TikTok by Chinese entities. Why not? Maybe banning TikTok is simply a pretext to censoring everything.

Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government.

V’Pac comments:

The dangers in the language of the bill are real and we agree with critics that this is not a good solution to TikTok and Chinese influence and data mining. The bill is potentially even worse than the problem. But that does not solve the problem of coming up with a better approach  than do nothing about China’s TikTok —  and I doubt it can be done without legislation.  How should the general issue be attacked, especially the data mining.  The data mining matter  and Chinas other subversiveness as to censorship is rivaled by woke politically biased American corporations especially from the left but across the political spectrum.

Something that limits data mining on 4th amendment grounds including the use of such data ought to be better explored. For too many, opt out provisions are clumsy and not seriously the default. Further the use, disclaimer and (lack of) privacy agreements are so stilted as to be purposefully dense and overwhelmingly favor anything the site wants to do and provide no redress to the consumer for violations.

An interstate default statutory business rule, ~~ your data cannot be sold or shared period ~~ might be a start rather than a promise. The citizen/ customer/ data owner has to specifically and for each transferee agree to the transfer with a prohibition of further transfer by the new recipient . A request to erase all identifiable data must be honored and non-compliance made legally onerous.  I am sure pro-privacy groups have more encompassing safety ideas perhaps including certificates of pro-privacy imbedded software for marketers and search engine providers engaged in interstate commerce.

0

0

DeSantis Trump and “hush-gate” non crime  — What would Trump do if DeSantis was accused of a nefarious activity however weak the evidence that could be used to aggravate an old wound sustained by his potential rival ?

I’ll work on a catchier title for this continuing commentary. The approach herein is to  defend Governor Ron DeSantis as a potential presidential candidate from overwrought criticism.  It is not intended to not recognize faults in DeSantis or be unfair to Trump. If it comes off that way consider that Trump has been aggressive early on about even the potential candidacy of Ron DeSantis for the Republican nomination (and anyone else for that matter). So there is more to respond to from that direction.

I think it is a fair observation that Trump has exuded an aura that fealty and the nomination is owed him and many of his absolute supporters have amplified that and gotten quite nasty about it.  The narrative is that any challenge to Trump is RINO based and from election fraud deniers.  Well that is not where this publication is coming from and we think there is a track record to substantiate that.

We just want to defeat the Democrat candidate with the most conservative candidate that reason as regards the candidate field indicates can do so in 2024.

That said we hope that any Republican candidate (they will be more conservative than the Democrat) who receives the nomination can be brought to victory and we will do what we can to that effect and expect the same from all claiming to be Republicans and especially from those seeking he party’s nomination for President .

Trump refuses to tone things down as regards Republican rivals even those who have established no track record of attacking him.  To be sure Trump has endured personal attacks, perhaps no one on the American political stage has endured as much, but he has  set the tone (his tone anyway) for this round of the nomination process, primarily focused on DeSantis. He will reap what he sowed.

We will examine some of the main hits on DeSantis emanating from Trump directly or what appears to be an organized or common meme propagated by the Trump campaign.  Embellishments to improve or correct something featured is entirely welcome in the comment section and we may incorporate them into our analysis as appropriate.  More extensive alternative views will be eligible to be featured so please consider doing so, participating in this exercise either in defense of Trump or another Republican candidate for the nomination.

First up is the controversy over what DeSantis said or should have said as regards the bogus charges being bandied about by the Manhattan Democrat prosecutor calling a grand jury together to consider his strained at best theory of felonious wrongdoing by Trump as regards the hush money / go away money paid to a porn star who herself issued a denial of any affair with Trump. Hush money is not illegal but the trumped up charges revolve around accounting for where it came from. We believe that Trump will not be indicted because the case was weak to start (not that the grand jury will hear the law and history of the matter) and falling apart with passing days. Democrats will think better of pursuing it having gotten about all the blood they can expect from Trump by raising the specter. They are beginning to see that implementing it could be a disaster for them.

We commented to several prominent blogs regarding the DeSantis response which are set forth below as various items.  We add here a challenge to critics of DeSantis’ response — tell us precisely what DeSantis should have said that Trump would also have purely said had the charges been directed at DeSantis (however unbelievable).

Item:
I see, people should only say something about Trump as regards the legal assault on him written by Trump’s pr folks while he unfairly runs off the mouth devoid of a filter attacking them. (DeSantis response was) An obligatory slap on the back and just a little point of a stiletto in the side is pure Trumpian. Well except “New York way” Trump would have shoved it in a little deeper. It’s his way. Politically, no one is obligated to do more than Trump would do. Whom who has followed Trump believes for one New York minute he would be all effusive in defense of DeSantis or any rival. Trump is hugely better than the utterly evil Democrat leadership but please don’t get all DeSanctimonious about him.

Item:
First off I have significant doubt that Trump will be indicted out of New York on the hush money related charges. The case seems to be falling apart although the Dems are delighting in raising the specter again of Trump -hush money -hookers.

DeSantis we should keep in mind is also a governor who fired a DA for not enforcing the law. According to Cornell Law web site: “The Constitutional basis for state-to-state extradition is found in the Extradition Clause, Article IV section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The statute implementing extradition is Title 18, Sect. 3182 of the US Code. Further extradition guidelines are to be found in the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, adopted in many states. . . . A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime. . . . “

There may be wiggle room as to how it is interpreted and applied but DeSantis has to consider the implications FOR A GOVERNOR not merely a potential Presidential candidate. The latter is truly mere by comparison as his first responsibility is to his state and any reciprocity he or the next governor might expect from blue states. One of the legal analysis articles I read indicated that it could be he can only preemptively control the state police and maybe not that should a grand-stander be interested. DeSantis can’t unilaterally change extradition policy or statutes and he does not review every one that comes down the pike. If a “wanted” memo comes out it may be actionable by law-enforcement people outside of DeSantis direct control.

There is also the matter of the propriety of Trump’s expectations in a couple of areas, practical and as to whether Trump has exemplified anything similar . On the practical level it may be better for Trump PR wise to give himself up were he to be indicted rather than hold up in Florida indefinitely in a situation where DeSantis can not really protect him indefinitely anyway. If he does not proceed to trial (and prior to that likely a quick release with a promise to appear) he is forever in Limbo in Florida. He can’t venture beyond its borders lest he be arrested elsewhere in a willing state (only speculation — might he be arrested at any time should he venture onto Federal property or control wherever he is?)

I bet Trump thinking “strongly” would not want DeSantis’ legally uncertain protection and if he did would only want the offer so he can then reject it and use the martyr narrative while still beating up on DeSantis for being weak or something. Trump may think it good PR to be able to rattle the chains even for a moment immortalized on the video from all the right angles that he makes sure he has present. Sober Democrats will think twice about advocating the indictment trigger be pulled although they delight in the division they are helping aggravate in the lead up.

Then there is the matter as to what consideration Trump deserves based on his performance and example. Calling for widespread peaceful protest in terms that seem more to make it all about him, as it arguably comes off, seems icky. And what has he done for the Jan 6ers — he has talked the talk (some) from afar perhaps but has he raised or provided defense money for them for their unfair treatment. Did he call for governors not to cooperate in extradition proceedings? Did he offer them refuge?

Having claimed how unfair things are for him — has he taken to the streets, ( as he seems to have called for) making himself vulnerable to more wrongful charges for the slightest misdemeanor. I am not saying it is appropriate for Trump to do any of that, or that there are not other considerations as to proper action, but I suggest Trump at any cost people (no one in particular) back off assuming DeSantis can effectively wave a wand on the matter.

Our arguments above can be refined as they were spur of the moment  while reading our morning assortment of conservative dispatches.  We will add to this and respond to related developments from time to time.

0

0

This blog will be most useful or informative to those with the following predilections including being conservative, otherwise we are not on the same page: 

Democrat Party policies and their leadership are pretty much evil, economically disastrous, counter productive, other than constitutional, America debilitating . . . Their candidates must be electorally opposed in an effective way.

At this stage of the American electoral process (20 months from the general election) is it not reasonable to presume that being on the ballot is key to winning the presidency, people, patterns and voting logistics being what they are?

On a national level, a write-in candidate can only prevent a win (and not necessarily the desired target) and is overwhelmingly unlikely to elect someone unless handicapping one to help another is the desired goal.

There is no organized political party alternative to the Republican Party for conservatives (or the Democrat party) at this stage of the game with a ballot position in enough states (or prospects of achieving it by 2024) that would appeal to a sufficient number of conservatives/conservative-populists that could garner sufficient electoral college victories to propel a candidate past either the Republican or Democrat nominee.

There is a lot of difference between the Republican Party, generally speaking its candidates, and the Democrat Party and its candidates.  If you really do not see that overall, no need to read further.

A Republican winning against the Democrat is generally better than having a Democrat elected.  Yes sometimes individual races should be seen as contributing to the whole and so when voting it is sometimes a matter of hold your nose and vote.  Applying some charity and appreciation of human foibles, that is not generally the case with Republican candidates but there are exceptions that can be “sat out” at little risk to the republic.  The presidential election in most states is not one of them for conservatives as a wave is useful to sustain national policy improvements.

Do we accept that four more years of any Democrat on the political horizon as President is not to be desired — that the idea of letting it get worse because one’s favorite candidate did not get the Republican nomination, to make some point, is dangerous as it may only get worse and therefore that much harder to recover from.

That if enough people do not see the writing on the wall now, four more years of “progressive” Democrat is not any more likely to create dramatic change afterwards.  That it is at least as likely that people will clamor for more Big Government solutions (minor retrenchments notwithstanding) because of the dependency mindset further ingrained in the populace. Is western Europe not an example?

Do you accept that the nominee of the Republican Party is likely to be more inclined to spend less, attempt financial sustainability, be inclined toward judges who respect the Constitution, more culturally conservative, more pro-life, more for border control, supportive of parental rights, more for law and order . . .

That in 2020 (and 2022) there was substantial election altering cheating by Democrats. That Trump arguably won the electoral college in 2020 however for most people the election is not about that. The 2024 Republican Presidential process  is about who best to beat the Democrat nominee in 2024 because the Republican nominee given the state of the party today will be comparatively superior in policy to any Democrat once elected.

NO candidate is perfect and each candidate does, and even has to, make political compromises to garner support that seems inconsistent.

Each candidate for the Republican nomination should pledge to support the nominee of the Party for the general election, to turn the fight away from the internecine to focus on unified opposition to the Democrat candidates and what they stand for.

That rejecting these without sound reasoning given our country’s condition is an indication of something other than political maturity or wisdom.

With support of these (we are open to refinement and will apply them) we are on the same page.  If not this blog will likely irritate you for the next 15 to 20 months.

Arguably more peripheral or subjective:

Age is a factor for a lot of voters looking to prominent candidates in 2024 — undisposed toward Biden and possibly Trump on that basis. Trump would be 78 and the actuarial tables indicate a more significant chance of declining health or event. Many people do not vote policy. Personality factors apart from policy, from arguably serious to relative quirkiness is a factor in elections for a lot of people. Voting can be very strange and against interests on superficial factors.

Who would have the broadest appeal in purple and even blue states is important.

Who is least likely to eat a live rat on stage?

0

0

• Updated!
• Handicapping this is more exciting than NCAA March madness
• Random points like my bracket picks

They have nothing but a trumped up case that will not survive appeal. Devastating analysis by  J. Turly ,  —  Andrew McCarthy

The charges against Trump are legally bogus, but that of course makes no difference as to why the Dems are making noise about it.

Biden’s legal problems (a zillion times more damning)

They also can reasonably predict that Trump will say something stupid or ‘play to type’ — a ‘type” that they have with some success, painted him.

Trump vociferously calling for protests in an un-nuanced tweet, is stupid for the above reason. Who thinks it was the best tack?

Trump is not going to go to jail or be held over this. Even if that were to be the case he should pull the specter of physical protests — the piñata the media wants — and communicate something like ~~ watch this unfold and contemplate the implications —  and if he were to be held even overnight — a Letter from Birmingham Jail sort of thing has far more pathos and shows how small the Democrats are.

Raising the specter of Trumps womanizing (exaggerated or not) is not helpful to Trump. Anything to give people a reason to not vote for him against interests compared to Biden. Hell lies and Trump’s personality are all they have.

It could backfire, but Trump is not helping it backfire by calling for people to protest willy nilly and without planning and preparation.

It might not happen: Not So Fast on That Trump Indictment – It’s Not a Done Deal Yet

Doesn’t have to now — Trump has flubbed it enough that he is doing the damage they wanted to inflict.

Many would like to see Trump in shackles but just raising the specter works for them, until it doesn’t, and they might be reevaluating that

If they do use the DA to drop the dime,  the DA is a sacrificial lamb at worst.  They (Dem op center) do not care that he is in for an ultimately embarrassing legal shellacking on appeal. They will provide his sinecure for playing the game.

It is so obviously a trumped up charge that DeSantis ought to have in some way call it that.

Not withstanding this: Trump’s Ex-Lawyer Defends DeSantis Silence on Possible Manhattan Indictment.   Politically it could not harm him to point out the legal nonsense going on.

Problem with the calls for him to not enforce an extradition is that it would require him to be judge and jury on the case and that is not tenable. We are told he could delay it  for 60 days and that he could offer to Trump.

Ron DeSantis is staying silent amid a push from MAGAworld for him to say or do something about a possible Trump indictment

UPDATE DeSantis commented on the possibility of a Trump indictment over the hush money accounting situation today — decrying the politicalization of the Manhattan Attorney office under Bragg.

The Trump team responded to DeSantis’ hug with a bit of stiletto with a dull knife pull. I think DeSantis’ comments were good enough as to the substance of the persecution and the Trump machine cannot properly expect more given their pettiness toward DeSantis. Sure DeSantis “happened” to mention the antecedent event of hush money to a hooker  but then that is the sort of thing Trump would do is it not?

DeSantis can play hardball with a little more alacrity than Trump’s gonzo ball. Trump people have previously and repeated in response to todays comments from Desantis bandied about accusations about DeSantis and alcohol at a party with underage girls present 20 years ago (ever been at a party with adults and underages were present  — how about most picnics where non-teetotaler parents are present?).

Read more about the back and forth between the two and how DeSantis is constrained from doing much other than decry the bias and unfairness in the talk of charges against Trump. DeSantis attacks Manhattan ‘Soros-funded’ prosecutor in first comments on possible Trump indictment.

0

0

• if Senator Ernst demurs from McConnell’s characterizations about the Tucker Carlson release of Jan 6 footage in any meaningful way she owes it to posterity to say that louder than her presence with McConnell spoke 

Grassley, Ernst dispute media claims they criticized Carlson’s Jan. 6 footage

The Iowa Standard (TIS) asked Senators Ernst and Grassley about their statements regarding the Tucker Carlson show releasing previously unseen video of the Jan 6 mostly peaceful demonstrations. As noticed by Carlson, and as we also pointed out, Ernst was on camera next to Senator McConnell when he voiced support for a condemnation of Carlson’s portrayal of the video made by the Capitol Police chief.  The video as presented by Carlson questioned and was objectively  exculpatory as to the guilt and especially the sentencing of demonstrators arrested and charged with various crimes that day. Other implications about police performance can be drawn from Carlson’s presentation.

Why couldn’t Ernst (and Grassley) say something to that effect?

Instead Ernst wanted it to be known that she thought editing 40K hours of tapes was somehow in general wrong. We are not aware of a similar statement by her criticizing the Jan 6 prosecutors treatment of the tapes, withholding the bulk of the tape from defense council, selectively editing it,  serving to railroad convictions and lengthy sentences, denying exculpatory evidence.  Indeed Senator Ernst, how are people to view 40 THOUSAND hours of tapes?

Evidence is in the tapes not Ernst or Grassley’s narrower perspective.

With any sense of comparative balance “equity” the charges against most of the Jan 6 protestors arrested should have been dismissed or charged as misdemeanors rating a fine and minimal sentences when compared to “direct action’ perpetrated by the likes of Antifa and BLM, (that is when the police ever got around to arresting them in various jurisdictions).

TIS asked Ernst and Grassley to respond to Tucker Carlson identifying each of them as supportive of McConnells views and to hold forth on these open ended questions:

Any statement on Tucker Carlson’s decision to air the footage.
Any statement regarding Jan. 6 following the release of the footage.
Any statement on whether they believe Ashli Babbitt’s murder was justified.
Any statement on the continued detention of protestors from Jan. 6.

The response from each senator to TIS was vague and failed to answer the questions posed to them. The responses according to TIS were as follows with Ernst essentially forwarding the comments she made to the publication Axios after standing next to McConnell and hearing him saddle up with the Capitol Police to condemn Carlson’s revelations to the public — revelations withheld by prosecutors from defense lawyers of those accused of trumped up crimes that day.

“[They] should be widely available to everyone and not just select people. And it should not be selectively edited. There’s a lot of different sides that will be presented and that’s OK. We need to have that discussion, but it needs to be an open, honest conversation. I can tell you from where I stood in the Senate chamber, it was a very uncomfortable feeling. And the people that were out in the halls, they were not friendly. Let’s put it like that. They were not being peaceful. I had two women staffers, early 20s, that were clinging onto me for dear life and crying. They were terrified by those people.”

Grassley was quoted by Rolling Stone as saying, “what happened that day shouldn’t have happened” in response to Tucker’s airing of the footage. But without knowing how the question was posed, that’s hardly a condemnation of Carlson.

. . .

Ernst’s office obviously replied with her response to Axios, but hasn’t responded to the other things we asked about. Grassley’s office responded, asking what we were referring to as well. We shared with them the story from Slate, as well as informed them Carlson pointed to Grassley as one of his critics during last Wednesday’s episode.

Grassley’s office said the comment reported by the media that what happened that day shouldn’t have happened was a “general observation” about the Capitol breach.

“When asked about making the video footage public, he’s said he believes it’s a matter of public interest and should be made available in full. He never commented about Mr. Carlson’s coverage.”

Yes it does seem fair and valid attachment when 1) the good Senator was standing next to and heard McConnell’s comments and offered no demurral in her time, even to the extent of the typical “I must disagree with my good friend . . .” 2) Senator Ernst was not there absent her history of what amounts to histrionics regarding events that day nor with ample time having passed when plenty of evidence has been revealed apart from the release of the tapes by Carlson demolishing her own falsehoods and over the top characterizations of events that day. Characterizations she has now only subtly modified but earlier ones never apologized for in order to stand corrected — especially regarding her allegations of blame regarding deaths Jan 6th.

Grassley was not standing with McConnell and Ernst that day but then 1) maybe he couldn’t because he has been with McConnell on so much or 2) maybe his instincts are a little better. But like Ernst the same criticism of his uncorrected/unapologized for assertions in line with the DC Party about Jan 6 are still relevant in evaluating his recent statement given the timeliness of these new developments.

TIS has not been remiss in reminding readers about the Iowa delegation’s uniformly pathetic demeanor about events that day but this story was an opportune time to invite them to specifically correct their previous “murdered police” statements and insurrection hyperbole. They might have had they bothered to answer TIS questions but they needed to be pinned down. Perhaps asking “do you stand by your comments two years ago regarding deaths and motivations of Jan 6 protestors?”

Here are Grassley’s and Ernst’s statements issued many days after Jan 6 when enough had been revealed to give them rhetorical pause but which they declined to exercise in keeping with DC Uni-party hyperventilating:

Ernst Statement on Upcoming Impeachment Trial (excerpt)(caps our emphasis)
Jan 25 2021

“As I’ve said, PRESIDENT TRUMP EXHIBITED POOR LEADERSHIP and holds some responsibility for the anarchy that ensued at the heart of our democracy. The individuals who lawlessly stormed the Capitol, MURDERED POLICE, and ATTEMPTED TO PREVENT CONGRESS FROM DOING ITS JOB, should be held accountable to the full extent of the law.
—————————————-
Statement for the Senate Record by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
United States Senate On the Senate’s Acquittal of former President Donald Trump February 13, 2021 (excerpt) (caps our emphasis)

“What happened here at the Capitol was completely inexcusable. IT WAS NOT A DEMONSTRATION OF ANY OF OUR PROTECTED, INALIENABLE RIGHTS. IT WAS A DIRECT, VIOLENT ATTACK ON OUR SEAT OF GOVERNMENT. Those who plowed over police barricades, assaulted law enforcement, and desecrated our monument to representative democracy flouted the rule of law and disgraced our nation. SIX PEOPLE, INCLUDING TWO U.S. CAPITOL POLICE OFFICERS, NOW LIE DEAD IN THE WAKE OF THIS ASSAULT. The perpetrators must be brought to justice, and I am glad to see that many such cases are progressing around the country.”

“While the ultimate responsibility for this attack rests upon the shoulders of those who unlawfully entered the Capitol, everyone involved must take responsibility for their destructive actions that day, including the former president. As the leader of the nation, all presidents bear some responsibility for the actions that they inspire — good or bad. UNDOUBTEDLY, THEN-PRESIDENT TRUMP DISPLAYED POOR LEADERSHIP IN HIS WORDS AND ACTIONS. I DO NOT DEFEND THOSE ACTIONS AND MY VOTE SHOULD NOT BE READ AS A DEFENSE OF THOSE ACTIONS.”
————————————————

The “murdered police” and “dead police” statements are lies and were lies then. As they should know well by now referenced deaths were either unrelated or at the hands of police. Their general statements about the motivations regarding “what happened being completely inexcusable” and blaming of Trump are just plain pathetic. Not every avenue is appropriate but wanting to be heard, standing against “no standing” regarding evidence of a stolen election prior to it being ratified and clamoring for Congress to DO ITS JOB as in seriously explore the evidence prior to rubber-stamping as if Congress’ job was no more than ministerial, RATHER THAN the accusation from Ernst and Grassley that protestors were standing against their doing their job. It is not a subtle distinction. Failing to acknowledge that shows how out of touch those two can be.

By far most of the people even inside the Capitol, however overwrought some were, were there to be heard not to vandalize even if to cry out from the galleries. But Grassley and Ernst blaming Trump who asked people to be peaceful and patriotic that day is calumny against him and the spoken word.  As we said previously, if Senator Ernst demurs from McDonnell’s characterizations in any meaningful way she owes it to posterity to say that louder than her presence with McConnell spoke.

Aside:

I am not sure what Trump’s endorsement of Grassley in the 2022 Senate Republican primary  indicated (one of the unimpressive primary and general wins Trump credits himself with). It seems more about Trump’s hope to have Grassley’s endorsement in the Iowa caucuses. But alas supposedly that is not going to happen. Grassley for now is demurring although perhaps his operatives will be full throttle.

Nevertheless, Trump, we suspect, will continue to let Grassley’s (and Ernst’s) comments blaming Jan 6 on him pass, hoping not to rile them.  They should worry about not riling Trump supporters.

There are valid criticisms of Trump including especially who has the best public perception to win the 2024 general election.  It is about winning not rewarding someone, or pursuit of retribution especially if that pursuit results in a negative perception and is counterproductive to an actual win.

However, my objective analysis is that if either were interested in helping Trump they would correct their untrue and hyperbolic statements surrounding Jan 6 which targeted Trump and by implication the sentiment of so many of his supporters. I do not see that happening and so never-Trumperies can actually use Grassley and Ernst’s statements against Trump and Trump supporters will be less enamored with them.

Related reading by Kurt Schlichter at Townhall:

Stop calling it an insurrection.   (excerpt)

Nor was this incident some sort of “attack on Our Democracy where our freedom hung on by a thread.” The drama queenery might play on MSNBCNN, but it just makes the base despise the Republican Party even more – which is hard – when that crap comes from our own people. You are not downplaying what actually happened by characterizing it accurately and without the kind of breathless exaggeration the Democrat demagogues delight in. The Democrats’ cat’s paws spent six months burning down the cities and this overwrought handwringing only draws attention to the discrepancy in elite caring between when the pols were vaguely threatened and when the proles were losing everything. . . .

GOP pols, listen up. You are not defending the buffoons of January 6 by accurately characterizing their actions. Stop playing along with the false narrative that unjustly trashes your own people. Stop minimizing what happened in the murderous Democrat-abetted riots in LA in 1991 and throughout our country in 2020 by not just lumping this incident in with them but by pretending it was a zillion times worse.

Previous posts at V’pac 

Standing with the Protocols of the “Insurrectionists” of Jan.6

Bait, incite, coverup, stonewall, Shanghai re January 6

Will Senators Grassley and Ernst apologize for parroting lies and spin about Jan 6th

Sen. Ernst issued an ahistorical near hysterical screed in response to Jan. 6 mostly peaceful demonstration

0

0

And there was our Senator Joni Ernst standing with McConnell who said “With regard to the presentation on Fox News last night, I want to associate myself entirely with the opinion of the chief of the Capitol police about what happened on Jan. 6,”  McConnell told reporters Tuesday, holding up a copy of the police chief’s statement. 

The letter McConnell was holding was written by the new Capitol Police Chief J Thomas Manger who McConnell scrupulously avoids mentioning was not on the seen or part of the Capitol Police or DC Police that day.  He had been retired  from active law enforcement for about two years when he was invited to take over the department plagued “by a flood of departures” after Jan 6. So Manger’s personal authority is a bit suspect, as is McConnell’s ,as is Ernst’s as to an objective overview unless they have reviewed 40K hours of tapes.

The bulk of the large group on the Capitol steps that day were noisy but not interested in entering the buildings. That was not their purpose. But they wanted to be heard.

Some of the huge throng that heard Trump’s speech made its way to the Capitol perhaps to ‘rage against the system’ but that is all, the likes of McConnell contributing to that. Most dissipated after Trump’s speech. Clashes with police may have been aggravated by elements of the police. By far most of those that entered the Capitol building, a small percentage of the attendees overall, many clearly ushered in by police — most of those were intent on more noise — running up and down the halls or something.

Some particularly overwrought were willing to vandalize in some stupid show of intensity but similar to what we  remarked earlier, noise and even obsteperous behavior from unarmed protesters does not constitute an insurrection as McConnell characterized that day, going so far as to blame Trump even though Trump’s closing admonition was for peaceful patriotic protest.

And Ernst is willing to associate herself with McConnell at every turn on the matter.  See this picture of her with McConnell when he made the pathetic, ridiculous pearl-clutching ‘insurrection” charge and blamed Trump.

Manger’s letter, endorsed by McConnell and Ernst takes great umbrage alleging what was as easily characterized as a largely peaceful protest overall was  a ‘siege’. Such ridiculous exaggeration is beyond historic, it is hysteric. The newly released tapes seem to reveal that many of the charges relate to what in perspective was a noisy sit-in.  As far as the accusation of ‘cherry-picking calmer moments’ — the American public has been inundated, propagandized with cherry-picked clips of bad behavior but without any context. As Carlson points out video exists that was exculpatory and withheld and McConnell and Ernst have associated themselves with the propaganda behind it all of which is the essence of lies.  If Senator Ernst demurs from McDonnell’s characterizations in any meaningful way she owes it to posterity to say that louder than her presence with McConnell speaks.

0

0