This will be an inauguration like no other in recent history.
It is reported the Pentagon is deploying upward of 20,000 National Guard troops with lethal weapons to Washington, D.C. for the Jan. 20 inauguration of GOP President Elect Joe Biden. This is twice the number of American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.
Additionally, The Army Times reports that, at the request of U.S. Rep. Jason Crow, D-CO, the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command is reviewing the backgrounds of troops involved in inauguration security “to ensure that deployed members are not sympathetic to domestic terrorists.”
This display of force is being arranged even though Biden’s inaugural committee announced on Jan. 3 that there will be a “virtual parade” after the swearing in ceremony to keep crowds to a minimum amid the coronavirus pandemic.
Since the election of Democratic President Jimmy Carter in 1977, Presidents and their families have walked at least part of the inaugural parade route on Pennsylvania Avenue on foot to wave at crowds. This act is meant to show they are the “peoples’ president.”
Four years ago, President Donald J. Trump and his wife, Melania, walked along people-lined streets, though police had earlier clashed with protesters, hurling flash-bang grenades to drive them from streets near the parade route.
The theme of Biden’s inaugural committee is decidedly different.
The committee is selling swag on the Internet that includes a $105 “Thakoon Panichgul – Sweatshirt” bearing the logo: “unity won over division.” Panichgul is an American fashion designer. At worst, this logo is a reference to a slander that all Trump supporters are White Supremacists. At best, it doesn’t do much to promote actual unity.
Simon & Schuster (S&S) may have had the right to drop a book written by U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-MO, on essentially political grounds.
But the act of doing so conjures up unpleasant images of suppression of unpopular and political speech.
The move is even more alarming as social media giants this week exercised their awesome power to silence the voices of American conservatives, from GOP President Donald Trump to Gen. Michael Flynn, ostensibly because they pose a threat of violence. (It may be purely coincidental that Trump recently sought to remove the platforms’ legal protection from lawsuits.)
But it feels different when a publisher silences an author. Perhaps because publishers historically championed unpopular books and authors.
Ironically, Hawley’s book is entitled, The Tyranny of Big Tech.
Not The First Time
This isn’t the first time S&S has cancelled a book by a conservative author.
Not only is the outcome of presidential election tarnished by doubt but so is the American legal system, which acted in near lock step to avoid addressing evidence of election fraud.
That was the testimony at a hearing of the U.S. Senate Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday by attorneys for GOP President Donald Trump.
They said a campaign of intimidation directed by leftists and anti-Trumpers against lawyers representing Trump also had an impact on judges.
“We have to acknowledge the court system has been deeply intimidated by the left, just as the lawyers have been intimidated. That is a sad, sad state of affairs,” said former Judge James Troupis, who is Trump’s campaign attorney in Wisconsin.
No one is challenging the blatant intimidation of attorneys who represented Trump. Among other things, a group called The Lincoln Project called on clients to stop working with big firms that represented Trump and shared the phone number and email addresses of Trump/GOP attorneys. Moreover, there currently are calls to boycott Trump attorneys and to challenge their law licenses.
The American Bar Association (ABA) has done nothing to stand up for civility rules that are at the heart of attorney code of ethics. The ABA did not respond Wednesday when asked for comment.
Newspapers across the country almost uniformly are blaring headlines accusing President Donald Trump of falsely claiming the election is being stolen.
But Trump’s “claim” that some locales are ‘stealing’ the election is an allegation. It may be unproven but it should not be dismissed as false.
The media’s claim that Trump’s allegation is false is mere opinion, which should not be disguised as fact on editorial pages.
The media has no basis for unilaterally rejecting Trump’s claim, let alone accusing him of lying. They don’t know. They have not verified the absence of fraud, especially in Democratic strongholds that are notorious for corruption.
When prosecutors issue criminal indictments, they are not required to prove their case until it gets to court. When civil litigants file lawsuits, they are permitted to develop their case by eliciting facts from the other side through discovery. They don’t have all of the facts at the outset.
It would be absurd if the media declared that criminal indictments and civil lawsuits to be “false” because they are not proven at the point of being made. Yet, this is what media outlets are doing to President Trump, while the election is still on-going and before any serious investigation has been conducted.
For hundred of years, political candidates have expressed concern (sometimes legitimate) about how big cities run elections in the United States.
But this year is different.
It marks the first Presidential election where the media feels entitled to step in and “explain” away concerns about ballot tampering and voter fraud or diminish them on the grounds they are unproven, disputed or even false.
For example, President Donald Trump, a Republican, tweeted Wednesday that the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania is “working hard to make up 500,000 vote advantage in Pennsylvania disappear — ASAP. Likewise, Michigan and others!”
Facebook flagged Trump’s claim with the statement: “Election officials follow strict rules when it comes to ballot counting, handling and reporting.”
So Facebook effectively diminished Trump’s concern because, as we all know, election officials in Philadelphia follow the rules when it comes to ballot counting, handling and reporting.
Isn’t THIS election interference?
Twitter flagged Trump’s claim with the notice: “Some or all of the content shared in this Tweet is disputed and might be misleading about an election or other civic process.”
Trump obviously is disputing the way Philadelphia is handling the election process. What is the purpose of Twitter’s caution that Trump’s concern is “disputed and might be misleading.” Twitter is effectively detracting from the legitimacy of Trump’s concern. Who elected Twitter?
If and when Trump files a lawsuit alleging misconduct by Philadelphia election officials, it would be highly unusual for the press to report the allegations contained in his complaint are “disputed” and possibly “misleading” Yet, Facebook and Twitter do not hesitate to denigrate the U.S. President’s concern about election fraud.