If Republicans genuinely want to win elections, they have no choice but to use whatever power they have to make those elections trustworthy again.
1. The DNC Controlled All Poll Watchers for 40 Years
I had to read this section of the book two or three times to absorb what it was saying. I couldn’t believe it could possibly be true. Yet it is: “Shockingly, the 2020 contest was the first presidential election since Reagan’s first successful run in 1980 in which the Republican National Committee could play any role whatsoever in Election Day operations.”
What? Next sentence: “For nearly 40 years, the Democratic National Committee had a massive systemic advantage over its Republican counterpart: the Republican National Committee had been prohibited by law from helping out with poll watcher efforts or nearly any litigation related to how voting is being conducted.”
This section in chapter 1 goes on to explain how such an insane thing could be real. Essentially, after Democrats accused Republicans of cheating in a New Jersey race in 1981, a judge banned the RNC from poll-watching and voting litigation everywhere in the country, then kept re-upping the order until 2018, when it finally expired three years after he died.
This handicapped Republicans for almost 40 years while Democrats were free to do things Republicans couldn’t, like give boosts to their voters all along the voting process and track them extensively, challenge ballots, document irregularities, and sue over election disputes.
A new report finds systemic racism, sexual obscenity, and anti-Americanism in U.S. public education, even in a deeply red state.
Report authors Anna Miller and Dr. Scott Yenor note that the kind of extremist ideology affecting kids in blue and purple states is also metastasizing within small-town and rural public schools in locales that faithfully vote Republican.
“School administrators in Coeur d’Alene manipulated an 11-year-old girl into believing she was a boy and should undergo gender transition surgery,” Miller writes in a study overview in The American Mind. “The elementary school counselor had coached the young girl into believing she was transsexual and instructed her how to tell her parents about her new identity. According to a recorded phone call between the counselor and parent, the principal and other school officials had known about this and began calling the girl by a boy’s name while purposefully choosing not to inform the child’s parents.” . . .
Many Idahoans have “the sense that Idaho is immune from these disturbances,” the report notes. “Our school districts seem responsive and responsible. Our laws emphasize conservative values. We have Republican supermajorities… There may be an Idaho difference, but the difference is not what people think. Idaho is uniquely complacent about the trends that people in other states see.”
One of the most visible ways many Idaho public schools push extremism common to far-left locales is in exposing kids to adult sexual practices and gender ideology, often without parent knowledge or consent.
For example, a “socioemotional learning” curriculum “used in many school districts statewide including Coeur d’Alene, Pocatello-Chubbuck, and West Ada … encourages students to question their sexual orientation and gender, be activists for issues such as transgenderism, and use the website LoveIsRespect.org for sex advice. The website includes resources such as ‘Five tips for your first time,’ refers places to get an abortion, and promotes sexual taboos like polyamory,” the report notes.
Being a red state offers little, if any, refuge from sexual voyeurism in schools, the report notes: “data suggests that LGBTQ-affirming curricula are widely available in Idaho’s education system. They estimate 31% of Idaho’s middle schoolers and 51% of high schoolers are taught about sexual orientation and similar numbers are taught about ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender expression.’ Similarly, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network’s (GLSEN) data show 12% of schools teach curriculum promoting the LGBTQ agenda and 47% of school libraries provide students with LGBTQ-related resources,” Miller writes in The American Mind.
Far above and beyond any health considerations, masking is a symbol. It is a talisman, a ritual, a communication of premises that I utterly reject. Being forced to wear a mask to me is the equivalent of being forced to wear a T-shirt that supports legalized abortion, which I believe is mass murder.
Wearing a mask communicates that I accept the premise that everyone should wear a mask, even if vaccinated, even if possessing natural antibodies, even if a child to whom the flu is more dangerous, even if an adult who believes living with risk is part of human life and that attempting to eliminate risk is more dangerous than accepting it. It communicates that the entire world should look like a hospital, a fearful and sad place where people are desperately sick, even if they don’t know it.
It communicates that I believe harassing the living hell out of Americans is a justified response to a disease with a 99.5 percent survival rate or better for those younger than 65. It communicates that it is reasonable to worship health as an idol, and to control citizens with fear. Well, I simply don’t believe any of that, and I’m not going to be forced to communicate that I do.
Yes, I could be wrong both about abortion, masking, and every other thing I believe. But it used to be considered an American thing for others to “defend to the death” my right to express what I believe, even by those who vehemently disagree with the content of my beliefs and speech.
Now I’m told by people who identify even as libertarians that I do not have the right to my own opinion about the post-totalitarian COVID regime, or that if I may hold my opinion privately I certainly cannot live in accord with my beliefs. Clearly, America has fundamentally changed. I oppose that fundamental transformation, too.
Joy Pullmann, The Top Reason I Hate Masks Is They Force Me To Live By Lies
It would be mystifying if Republicans won more seats in the House, retained the Senate, and picked up state legislative seats, all while the same voters voted against Trump. Trump has solidified his support among Republican voters and enjoys a massive approval rating from them he didn’t have in 2016, and expanded his coalition to more working-class and minority voters this year. This is not a blue wave year. This is a year that the blue wave of 2018 appears to be receding.
Yet we are supposed to believe the same media-Democrat complex that fed us wildly erroneous polls all year, and runs false information operations on us about coronavirus, the Russia hoax, and everything else they can use to steal power, that this blue wave’s evaporation did not at all affect the top of the ticket?
The video shows people dancing about getting a 'stimmy,' or stimulus check, and having '$$$ in the bank' and '$$$ in the pocket.'
Studies have found that while most used some stimulus money to pay bills and maintain their pre-pandemic levels of spending, recipients are also spending a significant amount of stimulus checks on restaurant takeout, discretionary spending, paying down debt, boosting savings, and investing — not exactly items required to keep people alive. Half of those ages 24 to 35 reported on one survey that they were spending half the stimulus on the stock market.
Explosions in government spending and constant bailouts that have flooded state, local, and individual budgets with unneeded and unearned cash have brought the national debt to approximately $28 trillion, and unfunded federal liabilities (the amount Congress has promised to pay out in the future above what it has required welfare programs like Social Security to take in) to the unfathomable level of $148 trillion.
This is a call by a contributing opinion writer to The New York Times to publicize people psychologically damaging their own children. It’s therefore wrong and disgusting. Predictably, Filipovic could not understand why. So let me explain.
When faced with the reality that one has brought a child into existence, the proper response is the traditional one that sane and healthy societies encourage: Committing to ensuring that child’s well-being, no matter the cost.
Validating a human being’s existence is intrinsic to loving that person. Love is an affirmation of the goodness of another’s existence. It is an eternal “yes” to the glory and beauty of another person’s being. Love means saying to someone, “It is good you are here.”
Parents owe their children this affirmation of existence, just as children owe their parents respect and gratitude for being given it. So what Filipovic is truly calling for is for media outlets to amplify hatred: Parents’ rejection of their own children’s existence. She wants to see a kind of living abortion. Abortion is indeed the overarching motif of this worldview, both literally and figuratively.
So it is no coincidence that a “child-free lifestyle” cannot develop many adherents without widespread access to and acceptance of surgical abortion, chemical abortion, and the abortifacient effects of chemical contraception. Purposeful infertility is so contrary to nature that it requires violence to maintain. Sometimes that violence may be hidden, as in the two-week-old embryos the Pill may kill without their mothers ever knowing, but because violence is inherent to this mode of being, it constantly flares up within feminist rhetoric.
Even if it is hidden, unknown, or suppressed, this kind of brutality acts to sever mothers and fathers from children in every way possible. What is abortion if not the most brutal form of child abandonment? There are many others in which children’s suffering is more hidden. In every manifestation, however, feminism’s cultivated brutality hacks apart the bonds between mother, father, and child that are crucial to societal happiness.
I would love to see a reprise of the New York Times photography series when these women are on their deathbeds and there is no one to come visit or hold their hands or check that the doctors are caring for them properly. That already happens to millions of elderly every year as families shrink, people refuse to have children, and government increasingly displaces family, as Politico reported a few years ago:
More women work–making it harder for them to take on traditional roles as full-time caregivers. And millions of old, frail Americans—divorced, widowed, or never married—now live alone without family nearby, or without family at all. The most isolated are sometimes called ‘the unbefriended.’… They end up getting care they don’t want, in a place they don’t want to be in—and it costs more.
I double-dog dare the NYT to publish glossy spreads of a smiling grandmother clasping her daughter or son’s hand as they bring her breakfast like they do every day, and quote the grandmother saying how blessed she is to have those children, and what a meaningful life motherhood has brought her. But it’s pretty unlikely. The New York Times is nothing if not committed to helping the ruling class divide people to keep them dependent.
The presentation goes on to suggest having doctors add racial information to their in-network directory profiles to help potential patients pick them based on skin color instead of their specialty, location, quality of care, or other non-racist factors. It claims several “clinical benefits for consumers and physician relationships based on race,” including better “communication,” “access to care,” and “preventative health measures.”
The title slide says the presentation was prepared by UnitedHealth Vice President Mike Kane, whom a LinkedIn profile indicates has worked at the company for nearly seven years.
It also claims, based on a “2020 UHC Directory Survey” of doctors and patients, that 68 percent of doctors surveyed were willing to share their race in a physician directory and 46 percent of consumers were “likely to use race in selection” of a health-care provider.
Yet the survey results also found significant discomfort with the idea of explicit racial segregation in health care, among both doctors and patients. “When asked specifically about race, a number of consumers and physicians have serious concerns about the implications of providing and using that information,” the ninth slide says. “However, some physicians believe it doesn’t make a difference as patients will find out eventually.”
These scientists are attempting to hide information that doesn’t conform to what roving violent mobs are attempting to impose at the blunt ends of bricks.
Science says don’t wear a mask. Except that you absolutely should wear a mask. Even though it isn’t recommended by medical scientists using data from other respiratory disease outbreaks. But it’s still helpful. Or actually it’s not really, according to the Centers for Disease Control in 2017. Yet you should still wear a mask, or else. Who knows?
Science says gathering in groups will spread coronavirus. Except if those groups are thousands of anti-America protesters crowding together on hot streets. Oh, wait, yes, that actually does spread the disease. And so does attending church. But not going to the grocery store. While going to the beach is dangerous. Except being outside is actually about the safest place you can be.
Except that there are second waves of transmission in hot, summery places where lots of people outside. The science said summer would slow the virus. Except now it’s not, and you need to stay inside. Except when you’re going outside. But don’t you dare plant your garden when you’re out there, or go to your cabin. But other people from other states can go to their cabins in your state. Because science!
Plenty of public leaders are insisting “science says” kids shouldn’t go back to school, even though medical organizations point out that not going to school is more dangerous to kids than going, and so is the flu, over which we never close schools. The Centers for Disease Control also never recommended closing schools, yet still schools are closing and only partially reopening and acting like teachers should get special employment privileges that nurses and grocery store workers don’t.
Even when science lines up on one side of an issue like this, it’s discarded in favor of politics. It’s as obvious as the swaddled noses on our faces that science is now just a weapon to be used against people who disagree with the left, or simply want to be able to retain the classic American freedom to run their own lives and families as they see fit.
