We are the drain the swamp people

Anything Goes’: Kari Lake Announces ‘Ballot Chasing Operation’.

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.

See our previous post:

Republican Ballot Harvesting – Who is going to do it – Who will submit to it – How will it be effectively done.

0

0

• 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 Caesar Rodney 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.

Republicans Should Not Bet On Ballot Harvesting.

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.

How Ballot-Harvesting Became The New Way To Steal An Election.

We Might Finally Get Some Answers on What Killed the Red Wave.

Real Talk About Elections.

Election Day vs. ‘Election Season’: Should the GOP Continue to Fight the Democrats’ Game or Play It as Well?

The Top 3 Illegal Ballot Harvesting Cases That Should Be Prosecuted.

Church “Ballot Harvesting:” What It Is and Why Evangelicals Must Use the Strategy in the 2020 Elections [Video].

Trump Wants GOP To Become “Masters At Ballot Harvesting”.

0

0

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.

Related reading:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=tucker+Carlson+on+climate&t=osx&ia=web

Quadrivium foundation.

Quadrivium Foundation

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/03/22/wisconsin_special_counsel_zuckerberg_money_and_obamas_campaign_office_ran_the_2020_election_in_wisconsin.html#!

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/28/1172684224/since-the-firing-of-tucker-carlson-viewers-have-deserted-fox

https://www.yahoo.com/news/tucker-guest-says-zuckerberg-funded-030228357.html

0

0

• 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.

Bud Light Trips Over Former Statement With New Action, Gets Wrecked by Right and Left

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.

0

0

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