political folly

June 6, 2026

The Cost of a Rumor

Targeted out of no where, for no reason! — Harley Davidson has been targeted for no apparent reason! A company that has been in good standing for over 120 years!

There was a time when if someone wanted to damage a business, they had to stand on a street corner and tell people not to shop there.

Today, all it takes is a social media account.

A single post can reach hundreds of thousands of people. A video can be shared across the country in hours. An accusation can become accepted as fact before anyone pauses to ask whether it is true.

That raises an important question:

When does criticism become defamation?

The question came to mind after reading reports about a recent social media campaign targeting Harley-Davidson.

For decades, Harley-Davidson has represented something uniquely American. Its motorcycles have become symbols of freedom, independence, veterans, road trips, and a culture that has existed for generations.

Yet over the past several weeks, social media influencers and political personalities began attacking the company, describing it as “woke,” “anti-American,” and even “gay.” At the same time, many of the same accounts were encouraging consumers to purchase motorcycles from a competing manufacturer, Indian Motorcycle. According to reporting by The Bulwark, numerous influencers appeared to be using remarkably similar talking points while simultaneously promoting Harley’s competitor. The article raised questions about whether the campaign was organic or coordinated. No evidence has publicly emerged proving who, if anyone, organized the effort.

What makes the situation unusual is that Harley-Davidson had already announced in 2024 that it had ended its DEI department and scaled back several diversity-related initiatives after previous criticism from activists. The company stated it no longer maintained a DEI function and would focus on growing motorcycling and serving its riding community.

Yet the attacks continued.

Whether readers agree or disagree with Harley-Davidson’s past decisions is not really the point.

The larger issue is what happens when public opinion is manufactured.

If a business actually engages in conduct that customers dislike, criticism is fair. Consumers have every right to spend their money where they choose.

But what if the accusations are exaggerated?

What if they are misleading?

What if they are completely false?

And what if someone is profiting from spreading those claims?

Those questions move beyond politics and into the realm of ethics.

Most Americans would likely agree that consumers deserve truthful information before making purchasing decisions. We expect truth in advertising. We expect products to perform as advertised. We expect companies not to deceive customers.

Should the same standard apply to people attempting to damage a company’s reputation?

American law has long protected free speech. It should.

But free speech and knowingly false statements have never been exactly the same thing. Businesses, like individuals, can suffer tremendous financial harm when false information spreads unchecked.

Imagine spending a lifetime building a company, employing thousands of workers, paying suppliers, supporting local communities, and creating a respected brand. Then one morning you discover strangers on the internet have decided to label your business with accusations that may bear little resemblance to reality.

The damage can be immediate.

Customers leave.

Sales decline.

Employees worry.

Investors react.

All because of something that may never have been true in the first place.

Social media has given every citizen a voice. That is one of the great achievements of the digital age.

But it has also created a world where rumors can travel farther than facts.

Perhaps the question facing America is not whether people should be allowed to criticize businesses.

Of course they should.

The real question is whether people who knowingly spread false information intended to harm a company should bear responsibility when real damage results.

That debate is likely to grow louder in the years ahead.

Because in today’s world, a rumor is no longer just a rumor.

It can become a weapon.

Closing Question

If someone intentionally spreads false information about a business for political, personal, or financial gain, should they be held responsible for the economic damage they cause?

THE BOTTOM LINE

If you hear information coming from someone. Especially a politician. Stop. Take it with a grain of salt. And then go do your own research. See if it is true. Don’t believe them when they tell you that everything you learn through research is false.

Thank you for visiting benandsteve.com TruthEndures

When A Law Maker Takes Amen Corner To The People’s House

In a scene straight out of a dystopian movie about America’s collapse into christofascism, here’s a video of Arizona State Senator Anthony Kern and his group of anti-abortion zealots on their hand and knees in the the AZ State House Chamber of the state capital, engaging in tongues-praying for the reinstatement of a near-total abortion ban from 1864.

_{^{Image is not that of any person appearing in report}.}

Kern — a former code enforcement officer who was fired for lying and “string of other disciplinary problems” — can be seen on the carpet with his gang of extremists circled around the Arizona state seal in the carpet, babbling fervently for divine intervention to resurrect a Civil War-era law.

As Public affairs strategist Tony Cani points out, the real kicker is that they didn’t even need to pray; the groundwork for this moment had been meticulously laid out years prior.

That sounds like a striking and controversial scene, blending elements of politics, religion, and history. The image you’ve painted paints a vivid picture of the tensions surrounding issues like abortion and the intersection of religion and politics in American society.

It’s always concerning when political figures engage in such public displays of religious fervor to push a specific agenda, especially when it involves legislation that could significantly impact people’s lives. The blending of state and religious symbols in a governmental chamber can raise questions about the separation of church and state, a foundational principle in the United States.

The fact that Senator Anthony Kern has a history of disciplinary problems adds another layer of complexity to the situation. It raises questions about his credibility and the motivations behind such a public and symbolic act.

Tony Cani’s observation about the groundwork being laid out years prior underscores the idea that these moments are often carefully orchestrated for maximum impact. It highlights the strategic nature of political theater and the lengths to which some will go to advance their agenda.

It’s essential for citizens to remain informed and critically evaluate these actions, ensuring that decisions made by elected officials are in the best interest of all constituents and uphold the principles of democracy and justice.

One could bring up a valid point about the intersection of religion and politics, especially when politicians use religious displays as a means to appear more righteous or to gain public support for their agenda. The scripture from Matthew 6:5-8 that is mentioned highlights the importance of sincerity and humility in religious practice, cautioning against performative acts of piety.

Photo by Asad Photo Maldives on Pexels.com

When politicians engage in public displays of religious fervor, it can raise questions about their sincerity and motivations. Are they genuinely acting out of religious conviction, or are they using religion as a tool to advance their political goals? The line between genuine faith and political opportunism can become blurred, leading to skepticism and mistrust among the public.

It’s essential for voters and citizens to be discerning and critical of such displays, ensuring that they hold their elected officials accountable for their actions and motivations. Blind acceptance of religious or political rhetoric without critical evaluation can lead to the exploitation of faith for political gain.

Ultimately, the misuse of religion for political purposes can undermine the true essence of faith, which should be centered on love, compassion, and genuine connection with the divine, rather than on power, control, or political advantage.