Democrats and the corporate press have smeared liberals as” risks” for centuries as a tactic to intimidate and silence their social criticism, whether it be for refusing to support Covid fearmongering or for appearing at school board meetings to rally extended school closures. Despite the obvious plot, some elected Republicans continue to allow Democrats to use their” threat” narrative to thwart election integrity activists ‘ speech and their participation in the voting process.
In a” Meet The Press” segment on Sunday, NBC’s Kristen Welker invited several secretaries of state to join her in spreading Democrats ‘ dishonest” threats against election workers” narrative. And instead of pushing up against the article’s clear agenda, Welker’s two Democratic guests either bought the lay or offered a weak dodge.
Some people, I am aware, really continued on with their lives rather than returning for 2024. But by and huge, in Georgia, we’re really in very good shape”, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger responded. The secretary next touted poll worker recruitment and training efforts in the Peach State, saying these volunteers “understand all the checks, balances, and neglect- safes that are in place so you do have a good, stable, appropriate election”.
]READ NEXT: Republicans, Stay Off Left- Wing Networks Unless You’re Prepared To Go On Offense]
Al Schmidt, the nominal Republican and the state’s secretary of state, criticized the state’s collusion with federal agencies, including the censorship-prone Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, in an attempt to target election speech that it perceived as a” threat.” Welker was informed by Schmidt that the Keystone State has measures in place to respond to challenges “expeditiously so law enforcement can do its work, but our election officials can do the job that only they can accomplish, which is counting seats in our official democracy.”
‘ Threat’ Narrative Used as a Cudgel
The tale about” dangers” to election staff is a two- bladed strategy. First, it makes it more difficult for surveys observers to track the vote administration, either by fabricating justification for plans that keep them at bay or by making them feel intimidated.
Consider, for instance, the case of Janet Angus, a Green Bay election integrity advocate. On April 5, 2022, Angus observed Molly Senechal cast two vote for herself and her father. Senechal informed Green Bay City Clerk Celestine Jeffreys that her husband was” sick” and that he could not appear in person on his own because he was not permitted by law to do so. Jeffreys accepted both vote anyhow, as my partner M. D. Kittle reported.
When Angus confronted Jeffreys about the rules, Jeffreys allegedly played into the danger tale by claiming that Angus “mocked her” and that Senechal was “very concerned” about the impact of his words on her. Senechal responded by saying the change made her “anxious.” Angus was charged with disorderly conduct, and the town of Green Bay sought and obtained a provincial reference. A judge later tossed out the referencing, noting it appeared to be “retaliatory”.
Democrats have filed bills like the one in Virginia that would have classified threatening an individual who had formerly served as an election official or is already one as a “hate crime” in order to fuel the tale that poll workers are in grave danger from vote dignity protesters. Threatening election workers is already “explicitly prohibited” under state and federal law, as Fleetwood noted.
Additionally, the narrative is used to block poll watchers ‘ access. When Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers vetoed a Republican bill that would allow poll watchers to observe more closely. He cited concerns about the alleged threats posed by public participation in the process, saying it could “enable voter intimidation and prevent election workers from effectively and efficiently carrying out their important duties without interference.”
The second goal of Democrats ‘” threat” smear is to make election integrity a third-rail topic. Democrats have crafted a” threat to democracy” narrative about the events of Jan. 6, 2021, that makes many Americans reluctant to voice legitimate concerns about the justice system’s treatment of Jan. 6 protesters. Similarly, treating election integrity concerns as” threats” is an attempt to scare Republicans away from the topic.
Democrats Have A History Of’ Threat’ Smearing
Americans who were skeptical of hasty vaccine mandates and other fiats were labeled as” threats” to the public during the height of the Covid pandemic. The National Terrorism Advisory System went even further by issuing a bulletin in August of 2021 warning that “anti-government/anti-authority violent extremists” might” seek to exploit the emergence of COVID- 19 variants by looking at the potential re-establishment of public health restrictions as a justification for attacks.” Additionally, the bulletin claimed that the issues were “exacerbated by… grievances over public health safety measures and perceived government restrictions.”
No such attacks have occurred, of course, but the bulletin’s purpose was to disparage those who had protested stringent Covid laws like” stay- at home” orders that forbid people from visiting their loved ones and mandates for people to undergo experimental jabs or risk their jobs.
Democrats also used the” threat” smear against parents who attended school board meetings to voice their opposition to lockdown measures that were detrimental to children’s mental and educational progress. The White House was advised by the National School Boards Association ( NSBA ) to use antiterror strategies against these parents. In a memorandum issued in October of this year, the FBI was instructed to put these parents on” threat tags.”
Later, the House Judiciary Committee determined that Biden’s administration had” no legitimate basis” for using antiterrorist tools against parents.
The Federalist’s election correspondent, Brianna Lyman.
