America Faces No Greater Threat Than Joe Biden and the Democrat Party. Their Assault to Our Borders Is As Great As Their Assault to Free Speech and Free Elections
Saturday, September 17, 2022
JOE BIDEN'S MINISTER OF PROPANDA AND OPEN BORDER MARK ZUCKERUNT HOWLS!!! - The law held that social media companies cannot censor views with which they disagree (invariably, views opposing Democrat actions and ideas)
The law held that social media companies cannot censor views with which they disagree (invariably, views opposing Democrat actions and ideas). The tech companies argued that it violated their corporate free speech right to censor people on their platforms. The Fifth Circuit strongly disagreed, striking a huge blow in favor of Free Speech in America.
Biden administration forced to turn over Big Tech emails in collusion lawsuit
As Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts notes in his introduction, the primary question addressed by Lucas’s book, The Myth of Voter Suppression. The Left's Assualt on Clean Elections is this: “[W]hy does the Democratic Party oppose free, fair, and credible elections?” The short answer the author provides is that Democrats are much better at cheating and rigging elections than Republicans. Tammany Hall, the Chicago Daley machine, and Missouri’s Pendergast organization provide three historical examples. That’s not to say Republicans never engage in electoral shenanigans, of which cases Lucas provides several examples. But it is Democrats who consistently oppose measures designed to increase election integrity -- measures that even a former Democratic president, Jimmy Carter, advocated in 2005 when serving on a bipartisan commission co-chaired by former GOP Secretary of State James Baker.
Two major recommendations of that commission were voter IDs and restrictions on mail-in voting, the latter being a process riddled with invitations to fraud, especially when corrupt voter rolls include dead persons, duplications, and folks who’ve moved elsewhere. Opportunities for fraud are multiplied when, as in California, ballot harvesting is permitted. Under this execrable practice (also known as vote trafficking) almost anyone can take custody of and deliver mail-in ballots to a mail box or voting receptacle -- a “chain of custody” nightmare that would have made Mayor Daley’s day in 1960.
By contrast, the top Democrat priority in 2021, HR-1 (mendaciously labeled a “voting rights” bill) would have eliminated most state voter ID laws, expanded ballot harvesting, mandated Election Day voter registration, and required no-excuse absentee voting in all states. Ironically, in 1977, first-term Delaware Senator Joe Biden opposed Election Day voter registration because it “could lead to a serious increase in voter fraud.” Fortunately, this “For the People” bill didn’t survive a Senate filibuster but, as Lucas explains, Democrats continue to press for legislation that would essentially federalize elections and thus make their legitimacy as questionable as the COVID-rationalized measures that plagued the 2020 election.
Lucas also notes that the whole idea of “voter suppression” is a myth designed to smear legal measures like voter IDs. No law actually mentions the term “voter suppression,” and the author cites numerous examples that debunk the Democratic narrative that ID laws diminish election participation. Indeed, most electoral evidence suggests ID laws actually increase participation and buttress voter confidence in election integrity. It is, of course, true that laws designed to increase election integrity do “suppress” fraud, which is doubtless a major reason Democrats oppose such laws that are common in Europe. Case in point: “Today, Democrats routinely call seeking an accurate accounting of eligible voters ‘suppression.’“ Such an accounting would obviously “suppress” the votes of 25,975 dead people who were discovered on Michigan’s voter rolls, stiffs who would obviously prefer to vote by mail.
A trip down memory lane reveals that political bosses have typically made arguments akin to those now proffered by the “voter suppression” crowd. Tammany Hall opposed cleaning up voting roles in New York City (where more votes were cast than there were available voters). That same corrupt Big Apple machine also “worked to get prisoners released to ensure they voted and even established a ‘naturalization mill’ to instantly turn immigrants coming off boats into voters.” Other strong-arm organizations campaigned against the secret ballot, which lessened their power to intimidate voters. Then there was 1864, when “Democrats tried to use mail-in voting to defeat Republican President Abraham Lincoln.” Today, the Brennan Center for Justice, along with the queen of the “voter suppression hysteria industrial complex,” Stacey Abrams, serve as the foremost Democratic voices for corrupt elections.
Lucas provides scores of examples of fraud that actually affected the outcome of elections, thus disproving the Democrat-Media mantra that fraud in American elections, and especially the 2020 election, is almost nonexistent. While Lucas doesn’t assert the 2020 POTUS election was stolen from President Trump, the examples he provides (including an eye-opening analysis by Professor John Lott of mail-in voting in adjacent, typically homogenous precincts) make it clear that that election was far from “the most secure” in American history. I should note that Lucas’ book is not and does not claim to be a thorough analysis of possible fraud in that election, but in my view the information he does provide indicates that its outcome could easily have been affected by the widespread use of mail-in ballots whose signatures weren’t carefully scrutinized and whose contents were frequently submitted for tabulation via vote harvesting.
Given this evidence plus a whole chapter listing organizations that provide an endless supply of money and energy for the Democrat HR-1 election fraud agenda, I question the brief assertion made in Lucas’s first chapter that neither voter fraud or voter suppression currently pose an existential threat to the republic. The $400,000,000 supposedly nonpartisan “Zuckerbucks” that went overwhelmingly to Democrat precincts is only one of many 2020 illegalities that makes this “existential” observation less than reassuring. Indeed, the conclusion I drew from reading Lucas’s scrupulously researched analysis of election laws and practices is that voter fraud (not voter suppression) is an existential threat to the republic right now.
The original Godfather movie is famous for the line, “Leave the gun; take the cannoli.” In this case I’d say, “Read the book but leave out the not-currently-an- existential-threat assessment.”
On Friday, the Fifth Circuit released its decision in NetChoice v. Paxton, a case a trade association representing the big social media companies filed against a new communications law in the State of Texas. The law held that social media companies cannot censor views with which they disagree (invariably, views opposing Democrat actions and ideas). The tech companies argued that it violated their corporate free speech right to censor people on their platforms. The Fifth Circuit strongly disagreed, striking a huge blow in favor of Free Speech in America.
Tech companies used to be free speech zones. However, once they inveigled just about everyone in America away from their usual means of communication and onto their platforms — that is, getting them away from the traditional public square in favor of their own squares — the companies began to clamp down on any speech with which they disagreed. Over the years, they've disagreed with (and censored) people supporting Trump, opposing the Russia hoax, challenging the COVID narrative (everything from masks to hydroxychloroquine to lockdowns), opposing the transgender fiction, and wanting to learn about Hunter Biden's hard drive, to name just a few disfavored views.
As you've gathered, the censorship flowed only one way: Big Tech silenced anything that challenged a Democrat narrative. We've since learned that this was not a coincidence. Aside from their own loathing of all things Republican, the tech companies took marching orders from the federal government, whether it was working with the White House directly (which allowed the White House to bypass the First Amendment), believing the FBI's false claim that Hunter Biden's hard drive was Russian disinformation, or (possibly) spontaneously passing private messages to the FBI. Mark Zuckerberg also spent $400 million privately funding election officials, dangerously blurring the lines between ostensibly impartial government agencies and private monies and has made clear that he intends to game future elections.
Texas decided to challenge the way the tech tyrants used their supremacy over the public square to silence speech. The Legislature enacted H.B. 20, a statute regulating social media platforms with more than 50 million monthly users (in other words, the bug guys, like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube).
The statute holds that these social media platforms are common carriers, affecting the public interest and having control over the marketplace of ideas. As such, says that statute, these platforms may not censor viewpoints, either by preventing people from expressing their viewpoints or preventing them from seeing others' viewpoints — provided that the views expressed do not violate laws (child sexual exploitation, threatening violence, etc.). From a free speech perspective, it's a very good law.
The tech companies had different ideas. In NetChoice v. Paxton, acting through trade associations, they argued that free speech has a very different meaning from actually allowing American citizens to speak freely in the internet arena, which has become the 21st-century public square. The tech plaintiffs advanced the novel theory that the constitutional right to free speech enshrined in the First Amendment includes an unwritten corollary that corporations controlling the public's means of communication have the right to silence such speech.
The court's decision is 113 pages long, so I haven't read it in any detail yet. As Reason noted, however, the introduction goes a long way to summing up just how good a ruling it is:
The implications of the platforms' argument are staggering. On the platforms' view, email providers, mobile phone companies, and banks could cancel the accounts of anyone who sends an email, makes a phone call, or spends money in support of a disfavored political party, candidate, or business. What's worse, the platforms argue that a business can acquire a dominant market position by holding itself out as open to everyone — as Twitter did in championing itself as "the free speech wing of the free speech party." Blue Br. at 6 & n.4. Then, having cemented itself as the monopolist of "the modern public square," Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017), Twitter unapologetically argues that it could turn around and ban all pro-LGBT speech for no other reason than its employees want to pick on members of that community, Oral Arg. at 22:39–22:52.
Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say. Because the district court held otherwise, we reverse its injunction and remand for further proceedings.
That's exactly the right argument — and I say that with no small amount of smugness, because it's what I've been saying for years. Presumably, the tech companies will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. However, the tightly argued logic I've seen as I've leafed through it, along with the incontestable constitutional principles and the uncontested facts, strongly militates in favor of the Fifth Circuit's position — that is, if one has any interest in maintaining America as a nation in which we honor the People's inherent rights as set out in the Constitution's first ten amendments.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) said on Thursday that democracy relies on passing the controversial Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA).
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-IL) said on Thursday that the bill will be “held over” as Klobuchar and Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) hash out disagreements over content moderation provisions in the bill.
Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) listens to FCCC Chairman Ajit Pai and FTC Chairman Joseph Simons testify about their FY2020 budget requests on Capitol Hill on May 7, 2019, in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
After the conclusion of Thursday’s Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, which was supposed to feature a vote to advance the bill out of committee, Klobuchar said that Durbin committed to taking up the bill next week.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) speaks to Senate Judiciary Chairman Richard Durbin (D-IL) during a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the U.S. Capitol on June 15, 2022, in Washington, DC. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
“I’m the daughter of a newspaperman, and I’m not going to stop fighting for local news. Our democracy relies on it. Chairman Durbin has committed to taking up our bipartisan bill in the Judiciary Committee next week,” she said:
Thursday’s delay follows Klobuchar’s decision to pause the advancement of the JCPA out of the Judiciary Committee after Judiciary Republicans managed to successfully pass an amendment to the bill, sponsored by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), that would prevent media conglomerates and big tech platforms from discussing content moderation during negotiations.
Democrats balked at the inclusion of the amendment, and Klobuchar said the agreement between her and Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) blew up.
Cruz lauded the bill’s delay as a victory for free speech.
“What happened today was a huge victory for the First Amendment and free speech. Sadly, it is also a case study in how much the Democrats love censorship,” Cruz said in his exclusive statement to Breitbart News. “They would rather pull their bill entirely than advance it with my proposed protections for Americans from unfair online censorship.”
Ted Cruz in Sugar Hill, Georgia, January 3, 2021 (Ashley Oliver/Breitbart News)
Congressional aides told Breitbart News that an agreement would not be reached on the bill ahead of Thursday’s hearing.
Sean Moran is a congressional reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.
“Today, Democrats routinely call seeking an accurate accounting of eligible voters ‘suppression.’“ Such an accounting would obviously “suppress” the votes of 25,975 dead people who were discovered on Michigan’s voter rolls, stiffs who would obviously prefer to vote by mail.
No comments:
Post a Comment