Republican Party – When The Abuser Goes To Work…

Big Tech Tests Gullibility of U.S. Voters

So, it seems that Big Tech will continue to kick former GOP President Donald J. Trump off the major communications platforms in America.

And Americans are being asked to believe this is because he poses a continuing threat to Democracy.

How gullible do you have to be to buy that explanation?

This week, a Facebook appointed advisory group and YouTube, which is owned by Alphabet, the parent company of Google, ratified the continued suspension of Trump from their platforms. Twitter has permanently banned Trump.

Trump is the pivotal figure in the Republican Party because 75 million Americans voted for him in 2020. Trump is not only being silenced but he is stymied with respect to fundraising.

Trump’s ban from the modern-day public square could have serious consequences for the GOP in the next election, which will decide control of the Congress.

Two Party System?

The United States has a two-party political system but one party, the GOP, has had one hand tied behind its back by three left-leaning billionaires from Silicon Valley, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, Sundar Pichai of Alphabet, and Jack Dorsey of Twitter.

Federal Judge Calls One-Sided Media ‘Dangerous’

Senior Judge Laurence Silverman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Friday launched a full-frontal attack on the state of the American media today, calling it “dangerous.”

Judge Silverman bemoaned the “economic” and “ideological” consolidation of traditional and social media into a megaphone for the Democratic Party.

Judge Silverman warned the power of the press is “dangerous” today because America is “very close” to one-party control of the media.

He observed the first step taken by a potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to control communications, particularly delivery of news. “It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy,” he said.

His comments were made in a dissent in a defamation case, wherein he expressed doubt the U.S. Supreme Court today would approve the landmark 1964 decision that protects the press from lawsuits by public figures. He said the case, New York Times v. Sullivan, effectively “allows the press to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.”

Democratic Party Broadsheets

Judge Silverman, who was nominated to the bench by late GOP President Ronald Reagan, referred to the notorious McCarthy era, when Congress engaged in a vicious hunt for Communists in government and Hollywood. “As one who lived through the McCarthy era, it is hard to fathom how honorable men and women can support such actions,” he said.

He called the repression of conservative political speech today by large institutions with market power is “fundamentally un-American.”

When Courts Refuse to Intervene in Election Disputes…

You could see the turmoil on U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, face as he criticized fellow Republicans.

He said he could not support overruling the Congressional count of state Presidential electors at Wednesday’s Joint Committee of Congress because “If we overrule them, it would damage our republic forever.”

He said he couldn’t justify such damage when “dozens of lawsuits received hearings in courtrooms across our country. But over and over, the courts rejected these claims.”

Courts played a central role in creating the election crisis and exacerbated it by refusing to get involved.

Despite McConnell’s hesitancy, some 100 GOP members of the U.S. House of Representatives and a half dozen dozen members of the U.S. Senate stepped up to oppose certification of the electors in a handful of swing states.

Among other things, they cited new election rules approved by partisan courts shortly before (or even during) the election. They said these judicially sanctioned rules set new election dates and procedures that invited fraud and chaos. They alleged the judicially-sanctioned rules violate the U.S. Constitution, which assigns exclusively to state legislatures the responsibility for elections.

Actual Finding Of Election Fraud Gets Twitter ‘Disputed’ Warning

This is a sign of the times.

A finding of actual election fraud in Arizona Thursday was slapped with a Twitter warning: “This claim about election fraud is disputed.”

How is this disputable? If votes were altered; that’s election fraud. And there is evidence that votes were altered in AZ. On what basis is Twitter, a social media platform, disputing this?