Connect with us

Government

‘Zuck Bucks’ Grift Was Born In Wisconsin; Voters Must Ban It In 2024

‘Zuck Bucks’ Grift Was Born In Wisconsin; Voters Must Ban It In 2024

Authored by Hayden Ludwig via American Greatness,

Republicans are playing…

Published

on

'Zuck Bucks' Grift Was Born In Wisconsin; Voters Must Ban It In 2024

Authored by Hayden Ludwig via American Greatness,

Republicans are playing the long game in the fight to ban “Zuck Bucks” nationwide, and in Wisconsin they’re entrusting it to voters on the state’s April 2024 primary ballot.

The Federalist first reported on Republican legislators’ strategy to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot next year, giving Wisconsiners the power to ban private funding for elections. Twenty five states have already done so, and in purple Virginia and Pennsylvania with Democratic support.

The need couldn’t be more urgent. Most Americans are now familiar with partisan billionaire Mark Zuckerberg’s plot to funnel $420 million to thousands of local election offices in 2020, using the once-obscure Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) in Chicago. CTCL marketed its Zuck Buck grants as a way to shore up budget constraints and help Americans vote during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In reality, the funds flowed to Democratic strongholds like Detroit, Atlanta, and Madison—vote-rich cities in swing states critical to ousting Donald Trump from the White House.

The Blueprint

The evidence for bias is overwhelming—I learned that firsthand when I authored the earliest reports in early 2021 on how Zuck bucks tilted the 2020 election in Biden’s favor. Take Wisconsin, where 90 percent of the $10 million CTCL bundled statewide went to 20 cities, all of which voted for Joe Biden. Biden’s margin in Wisconsin was just 0.7 percent, or 20,682 votes.

In fact, Wisconsin was ground zero for rolling out Zuck Bucks nationwide. In June 2020, Wisconsin’s five biggest cities submitted a joint proposal, the Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan, asking CTCL for funds to “facilitate voter participation” among “historically disenfranchised residents”—code for likely Democratic voters—at the same time that Democrat election officials were hastily changing election rules to massively expand absentee ballots.

Far from helping all Americans vote, this was a cynical effort to help the Left’s preferred voters cast a ballot.

CTCL indulged with millions to fund extra poll workers, ballot-counting machines, and ballot drop boxes across the five cities, made possible because the Wisconsin Election Commission greenlit the plan. It wasn’t until July 2022 that the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that drop boxes are unconstitutional, but by then it was too late.

Skeptics will correctly point out that the biggest grants went to the biggest population centers. Yet taken per capita, Zuck Bucks favored Biden counties by $3.75 per person on average compared with a measly $0.55 per person in Trump counties. Of the top 10 counties per capita that received CTCL grants, nine broke for Biden.

Is that equitable?

It’s the same story in all nine of the competitive states I examined in early 2021. In North Carolina, the imbalance was $1.44 per person in Biden counties vs. $0.61 in Trump counties. It was worse in Michigan: $1.83 per person in Biden counties vs. $0.45 in Trump counties.

Then there’s Nevada, where nearly $3 million in Zuck Bucks went to just two of the state’s 17 counties: Clark and Washoe, representing Las Vegas and Reno, respectively, where Biden nabbed over 92 percent of his entire statewide votes.

We’ve watched CTCL’s allies in the partisan media ignore all evidence that doesn’t fit their narrative and label criticism of Zuck Bucks a “conspiracy theory.”

But a reasonable observer would point out that these are precisely the spots Zuck Bucks would flow if CTCL was trying to turn out Biden voters, rather than all voters. Most Republicans saw through that lie and demanded states close the private funding loophole. If conservatives are to have a shot at winning Wisconsin in 2024, they must prevent that scheme from happening again—here’s how it’ll work.

Go to the Grassroots

Wisconsin Assembly Republicans introduced the amendment banning Zuck Bucks last year (HJR 101), which would’ve prohibited “the use of a donation or grant of private resources” to fund election administration. It passed the lower chamber, but that was only step one. Under Wisconsin law, because legislators passed the resolution again this year—that is, in two consecutive sessions—it’s now set to go before voters on the April 2024 primary ballot.

Wisconsin Republicans are right to send the issue to the people, since Democratic Gov. Tony Evers has vetoed not one, but two bills banning Zuck Bucks. In the second instance, Evers shot down a broader election integrity proposal “in its entirety because,” he wrote, “I object to the ban on governments using private grant funds for election administration.”

That didn’t stop 19 counties from passing their own local bans since 2021, according to the right-leaning watchdog Wisconsin Voter Alliance. Another 29 counties are weighing their own bans.

Map of Counties Banning Zuck Bucks (2023). Credit: Wisconsin Voter Alliance.

Conservatives should point out that Evers’ position greenlights influence from unaccountable special interests—the Left’s much-hated “dark money”—and even foreign sources. CTCL is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit whose donors enjoy anonymity under the First Amendment; there’s no law preventing, say, a Chinese or Russian oligarch from using a U.S. nonprofit to fund the offices responsible for counting Wisconsiners’ ballots.

Here’s a pitch to Democrats: By banning Zuck Bucks, voters will shield their elections from partisan billionaires and Russian meddling. It’s a winning issue for conservatives serious enough to try it. What do we have to lose?

Hayden Ludwig is the director of research for Restoration of America

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/05/2023 - 13:20

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Beloved mall retailer files Chapter 7 bankruptcy, will liquidate

The struggling chain has given up the fight and will close hundreds of stores around the world.

Published

on

It has been a brutal period for several popular retailers. The fallout from the covid pandemic and a challenging economic environment have pushed numerous chains into bankruptcy with Tuesday Morning, Christmas Tree Shops, and Bed Bath & Beyond all moving from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation.

In all three of those cases, the companies faced clear financial pressures that led to inventory problems and vendors demanding faster, or even upfront payment. That creates a sort of inevitability.

Related: Beloved retailer finds life after bankruptcy, new famous owner

When a retailer faces financial pressure it sets off a cycle where vendors become wary of selling them items. That leads to barren shelves and no ability for the chain to sell its way out of its financial problems. 

Once that happens bankruptcy generally becomes the only option. Sometimes that means a Chapter 11 filing which gives the company a chance to negotiate with its creditors. In some cases, deals can be worked out where vendors extend longer terms or even forgive some debts, and banks offer an extension of loan terms.

In other cases, new funding can be secured which assuages vendor concerns or the company might be taken over by its vendors. Sometimes, as was the case with David's Bridal, a new owner steps in, adds new money, and makes deals with creditors in order to give the company a new lease on life.

It's rare that a retailer moves directly into Chapter 7 bankruptcy and decides to liquidate without trying to find a new source of funding.

Mall traffic has varied depending upon the type of mall.

Image source: Getty Images

The Body Shop has bad news for customers  

The Body Shop has been in a very public fight for survival. Fears began when the company closed half of its locations in the United Kingdom. That was followed by a bankruptcy-style filing in Canada and an abrupt closure of its U.S. stores on March 4.

"The Canadian subsidiary of the global beauty and cosmetics brand announced it has started restructuring proceedings by filing a Notice of Intention (NOI) to Make a Proposal pursuant to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada). In the same release, the company said that, as of March 1, 2024, The Body Shop US Limited has ceased operations," Chain Store Age reported.

A message on the company's U.S. website shared a simple message that does not appear to be the entire story.

"We're currently undergoing planned maintenance, but don't worry we're due to be back online soon."

That same message is still on the company's website, but a new filing makes it clear that the site is not down for maintenance, it's down for good.

The Body Shop files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy

While the future appeared bleak for The Body Shop, fans of the brand held out hope that a savior would step in. That's not going to be the case. 

The Body Shop filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the United States.

"The US arm of the ethical cosmetics group has ceased trading at its 50 outlets. On Saturday (March 9), it filed for Chapter 7 insolvency, under which assets are sold off to clear debts, putting about 400 jobs at risk including those in a distribution center that still holds millions of dollars worth of stock," The Guardian reported.

After its closure in the United States, the survival of the brand remains very much in doubt. About half of the chain's stores in the United Kingdom remain open along with its Australian stores. 

The future of those stores remains very much in doubt and the chain has shared that it needs new funding in order for them to continue operating.

The Body Shop did not respond to a request for comment from TheStreet.   

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super…

Published

on

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super Tuesday primaries have got it right. Barring cataclysmic changes, Donald Trump and Joe Biden will be the Republican and Democratic nominees for president in 2024.

(Left) President Joe Biden delivers remarks on canceling student debt at Culver City Julian Dixon Library in Culver City, Calif., on Feb. 21, 2024. (Right) Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump stands on stage during a campaign event at Big League Dreams Las Vegas in Las Vegas, Nev., on Jan. 27, 2024. (Mario Tama/Getty Images; David Becker/Getty Images)

With Nikki Haley’s withdrawal, there will be no more significantly contested primaries or caucuses—the earliest both parties’ races have been over since something like the current primary-dominated system was put in place in 1972.

The primary results have spotlighted some of both nominees’ weaknesses.

Donald Trump lost high-income, high-educated constituencies, including the entire metro area—aka the Swamp. Many but by no means all Haley votes there were cast by Biden Democrats. Mr. Trump can’t afford to lose too many of the others in target states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Majorities and large minorities of voters in overwhelmingly Latino counties in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley and some in Houston voted against Joe Biden, and even more against Senate nominee Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas).

Returns from Hispanic precincts in New Hampshire and Massachusetts show the same thing. Mr. Biden can’t afford to lose too many Latino votes in target states like Arizona and Georgia.

When Mr. Trump rode down that escalator in 2015, commentators assumed he’d repel Latinos. Instead, Latino voters nationally, and especially the closest eyewitnesses of Biden’s open-border policy, have been trending heavily Republican.

High-income liberal Democrats may sport lawn signs proclaiming, “In this house, we believe ... no human is illegal.” The logical consequence of that belief is an open border. But modest-income folks in border counties know that flows of illegal immigrants result in disorder, disease, and crime.

There is plenty of impatience with increased disorder in election returns below the presidential level. Consider Los Angeles County, America’s largest county, with nearly 10 million people, more people than 40 of the 50 states. It voted 71 percent for Mr. Biden in 2020.

Current returns show county District Attorney George Gascon winning only 21 percent of the vote in the nonpartisan primary. He’ll apparently face Republican Nathan Hochman, a critic of his liberal policies, in November.

Gascon, elected after the May 2020 death of counterfeit-passing suspect George Floyd in Minneapolis, is one of many county prosecutors supported by billionaire George Soros. His policies include not charging juveniles as adults, not seeking higher penalties for gang membership or use of firearms, and bringing fewer misdemeanor cases.

The predictable result has been increased car thefts, burglaries, and personal robberies. Some 120 assistant district attorneys have left the office, and there’s a backlog of 10,000 unprosecuted cases.

More than a dozen other Soros-backed and similarly liberal prosecutors have faced strong opposition or have left office.

St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner resigned last May amid lawsuits seeking her removal, Milwaukee’s John Chisholm retired in January, and Baltimore’s Marilyn Mosby was defeated in July 2022 and convicted of perjury in September 2023. Last November, Loudoun County, Virginia, voters (62 percent Biden) ousted liberal Buta Biberaj, who declined to prosecute a transgender student for assault, and in June 2022 voters in San Francisco (85 percent Biden) recalled famed radical Chesa Boudin.

Similarly, this Tuesday, voters in San Francisco passed ballot measures strengthening police powers and requiring treatment of drug-addicted welfare recipients.

In retrospect, it appears the Floyd video, appearing after three months of COVID-19 confinement, sparked a frenzied, even crazed reaction, especially among the highly educated and articulate. One fatal incident was seen as proof that America’s “systemic racism” was worse than ever and that police forces should be defunded and perhaps abolished.

2020 was “the year America went crazy,” I wrote in January 2021, a year in which police funding was actually cut by Democrats in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Denver. A year in which young New York Times (NYT) staffers claimed they were endangered by the publication of Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-Ark.) opinion article advocating calling in military forces if necessary to stop rioting, as had been done in Detroit in 1967 and Los Angeles in 1992. A craven NYT publisher even fired the editorial page editor for running the article.

Evidence of visible and tangible discontent with increasing violence and its consequences—barren and locked shelves in Manhattan chain drugstores, skyrocketing carjackings in Washington, D.C.—is as unmistakable in polls and election results as it is in daily life in large metropolitan areas. Maybe 2024 will turn out to be the year even liberal America stopped acting crazy.

Chaos and disorder work against incumbents, as they did in 1968 when Democrats saw their party’s popular vote fall from 61 percent to 43 percent.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 23:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The…

Published

on

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reviewed no data when deciding in 2023 to keep its COVID-19 vaccine mandate in place.

Doses of a COVID-19 vaccine in Washington in a file image. (Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

VA Secretary Denis McDonough said on May 1, 2023, that the end of many other federal mandates “will not impact current policies at the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

He said the mandate was remaining for VA health care personnel “to ensure the safety of veterans and our colleagues.”

Mr. McDonough did not cite any studies or other data. A VA spokesperson declined to provide any data that was reviewed when deciding not to rescind the mandate. The Epoch Times submitted a Freedom of Information Act for “all documents outlining which data was relied upon when establishing the mandate when deciding to keep the mandate in place.”

The agency searched for such data and did not find any.

The VA does not even attempt to justify its policies with science, because it can’t,” Leslie Manookian, president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, told The Epoch Times.

“The VA just trusts that the process and cost of challenging its unfounded policies is so onerous, most people are dissuaded from even trying,” she added.

The VA’s mandate remains in place to this day.

The VA’s website claims that vaccines “help protect you from getting severe illness” and “offer good protection against most COVID-19 variants,” pointing in part to observational data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that estimate the vaccines provide poor protection against symptomatic infection and transient shielding against hospitalization.

There have also been increasing concerns among outside scientists about confirmed side effects like heart inflammation—the VA hid a safety signal it detected for the inflammation—and possible side effects such as tinnitus, which shift the benefit-risk calculus.

President Joe Biden imposed a slate of COVID-19 vaccine mandates in 2021. The VA was the first federal agency to implement a mandate.

President Biden rescinded the mandates in May 2023, citing a drop in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations. His administration maintains the choice to require vaccines was the right one and saved lives.

“Our administration’s vaccination requirements helped ensure the safety of workers in critical workforces including those in the healthcare and education sectors, protecting themselves and the populations they serve, and strengthening their ability to provide services without disruptions to operations,” the White House said.

Some experts said requiring vaccination meant many younger people were forced to get a vaccine despite the risks potentially outweighing the benefits, leaving fewer doses for older adults.

By mandating the vaccines to younger people and those with natural immunity from having had COVID, older people in the U.S. and other countries did not have access to them, and many people might have died because of that,” Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine on leave from Harvard Medical School, told The Epoch Times previously.

The VA was one of just a handful of agencies to keep its mandate in place following the removal of many federal mandates.

“At this time, the vaccine requirement will remain in effect for VA health care personnel, including VA psychologists, pharmacists, social workers, nursing assistants, physical therapists, respiratory therapists, peer specialists, medical support assistants, engineers, housekeepers, and other clinical, administrative, and infrastructure support employees,” Mr. McDonough wrote to VA employees at the time.

This also includes VA volunteers and contractors. Effectively, this means that any Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employee, volunteer, or contractor who works in VHA facilities, visits VHA facilities, or provides direct care to those we serve will still be subject to the vaccine requirement at this time,” he said. “We continue to monitor and discuss this requirement, and we will provide more information about the vaccination requirements for VA health care employees soon. As always, we will process requests for vaccination exceptions in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.”

The version of the shots cleared in the fall of 2022, and available through the fall of 2023, did not have any clinical trial data supporting them.

A new version was approved in the fall of 2023 because there were indications that the shots not only offered temporary protection but also that the level of protection was lower than what was observed during earlier stages of the pandemic.

Ms. Manookian, whose group has challenged several of the federal mandates, said that the mandate “illustrates the dangers of the administrative state and how these federal agencies have become a law unto themselves.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 22:10

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending