RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.theepochtimes.com/does-congress-know-that-this-is-how-communism-starts-trump-condemns-big-tech-policing-of-free-speech_3

President Donald Trump on Christmas Eve repeated his concerns over Big Tech censorship a day after he vetoed a defense-spending bill over Congress’s failure to remove liability protections for Silicon Valley’s social media companies.

“Twitter is going wild with their flags, trying hard to suppress even the truth. Just shows how dangerous they are, purposely stifling free speech. Very dangerous for our Country. Does Congress know that this is how Communism starts?” Trump said in a Twitter post on Thursday night.

“Cancel Culture at its worst. End Section 230!” he said.

Trump and his administration have repeatedly underscored the risks of unbalanced policing of user content on social media platforms, claiming that the companies are engaging in conduct that limits conservative viewpoints and stifles free speech. The president and the Justice Department have urged Congress to roll back legal protections under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act for companies that have engaged in censoring or political conduct.

Section 230 largely exempts online platforms from liability for content posted by their users, although they can be held liable for content that violates anti-sex trafficking or intellectual property laws.

The law allows companies to block or screen content “in good faith” if they consider it “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” The protections, however, weren’t intended to apply to services that act more like publishers than online platforms, outgoing Attorney General William Barr said in a speech in May.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/authors/victor_davis_hanson/

After Nov. 3, the meaning of some words and concepts abruptly changed. Have you noticed how new realities have replaced old ones?

Media cross-examination of the president is now an out-of-date idea. The time for gotcha questions has come and gone. Why ask a president whether he is a traitor or a crook when you can focus on his favorite flavor of milkshake or compliment him on his socks?

The old pre-election truth was that new vaccines take years to develop. The new postelection truth is that it’s no big deal to bring out new vaccines in nine months.

Impeaching a first-term president after his first midterm election — on a strictly partisan vote, for political reasons other than the Constitution’s “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” — is now a terrible idea.

Worse would be to appoint a special counsel to harass a president on unfounded charges of collusion with China. An even scarier notion would be a conservative dream team of partisan lawyers hounding President Joe Biden — using a 22-month, $40 million blank check.

It would be unprofessional for university psychologists and physicians from a distance to diagnose, in pop fashion, the mental faculties of a President Biden.

Certainly, there would never be talk about Department of Justice officials contemplating wearing a wire as part of an entrapment scheme to remove a President Biden through the 25th Amendment. That would almost constitute a coup attempt.

Almost as bad would be for the holdover FBI director to start “memorializing” his private conversations with Joe Biden on FBI devices. He might then leak such memos to the press — just in case he were to be fired for secretly investigating Biden for “Chinese collusion” and then lying about such a probe.

What happened to the Logan Act? Not long ago it was assumed to be a critically needed guardrail. Wouldn’t it now ensure that presidential transition team members were not calling foreign leaders while Donald Trump is still president? How has it suddenly become a defunct, ossified relic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d399gk-73J8

Below is a link to an Oval Office speech given by Trump.   It’s short, concise (about 11  minutes) … AND has been carried by no one.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/democrat-andrew-yang-files-for-nyc-mayoral-campaign_3631308.html

Far-left Democrat Andrew Yang filed formal paperwork on Dec. 23 that could see him run for mayor in New York City, according to the New York City Campaign Finance Board.

Yang ran for president in 2020 in a crowded field of more than 20 Democrats. He quit the race in February and endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden in March.

The 45-year-old ran on a promise to enact “universal basic income,” a wealth redistribution scheme in which the government would dole out $1,000 checks to each person in the United States aged 18 and older. Yang argued the scheme was necessary to counteract the advent of automation.

Current New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has similarly not been shy about ideas like wealth redistribution.

“We needed to profoundly change the distribution of resources. I like to say very bluntly, our mission is to redistribute wealth,” the mayor said earlier this month. “A lot of people bristle at that phrase. That is, in fact, the phrase we need to use.”

Yang has said that the idea is not socialist.

“Universal basic income is not socialism. It’s capitalism where income doesn’t start at zero,” he argued in a promotional video. “It’s the next form of capitalism. It’s the trickle-up economy.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/12/why_democrats_should_read_the_navarro_report.html

Americans increasingly live in two parallel universes, and this is a shame.

One side takes it as Gospel that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won an overwhelming victory on November 3 and will take the oath of office on January 20.

Another half of the population – according to a recent Rasmussen poll – believes that Donald Trump won the highest number of votes in history for the re-election of a sitting president and was cheated out of victory by overwhelming and widespread election shenanigans. An earlier poll found that even 30% of Democrats said it was likely or somewhat likely that the election was “stolen from Trump.”

As former U.S. Senate Patrick Moynihan used to say before the era of Big Tech, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts.

The report White House advisor Peter Navarro recently compiled as a private citizen should be required reading for Democrats who insist there is “no evidence” of widespread voter fraud. The Big Tech bosses who plaster disclaimers over the president’s tweets should read it, too.

So should Never-Trumpers and members of Congress, who undoubtedly will be called to adjudicate between dueling slates of electors on January 6.

Navarro looks at the six swing states whose results the Trump campaign has been contesting, and lays out a grid of election irregularities that swung all of those states to the Biden-Harris ticket in the days following the November 3rd election. “These six dimensions include outright voter fraud, ballot mishandling, contestable process fouls, Equal Protection Clause violations, voting machine irregularities, and significant statistical anomalies,” he writes.

He doesn’t engage in conspiracy theories, or impute malign intent or foreign domination of voting machine companies. While those may be true, it will take a criminal investigation that could last years to prove them.

In the real world, you don’t often get to see the man behind the curtain, the Wizard of Oz of election fraud and voting machine manipulation. It’s only in fiction that the mastermind has a name, a face, and a plot that rivets you to your chair.

But what thrills in fiction becomes horror in the real world. Half of the country is still reeling in shock as they watch the Democrat National Committee and their communications directorate in the national media continue to gaslight us.

We can’t believe this is actually happening. We can’t believe that in the real world – not some thriller – our democracy can be stolen right in front of our eyes.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/an-absurd-call-for-vote-reparations/

This unconstitutional proposal would obliterate the one-man/one-vote ideal.

J ust when it seems that the Left’s extremism has reached its outer limits, a new radical idea comes forward. Brandon Hasbrouck, a professor at Washington and Lee University, has taken to the pages of The Nation, the Left’s preeminent periodical, to advocate so-called “vote reparations.”

It’s an idea more dangerous than it is farfetched (though it is that as well). The scheme recommends double-counting the votes of black Americans. This doesn’t merely set aside the one-man/one-vote ideal that our republic operates on; it obliterates it. This proposal wouldn’t pass constitutional muster, nor should it.Counting some votes more than others is a throwback to a bygone era that Americans — black and white — fought to overcome. Perhaps Hasbrouck has forgotten that one of the primary aims of Jim Crow was to prevent the counting of the votes of citizens in communities and states solely on the basis of race.

Trotting out the usual woke critiques of the hour, Hasbrouck attacks the very foundations of our country’s constitutional design — including the Electoral College, the existence of the United States Senate, and even our independent federal judiciary — labeling them all legacies of slavery.

How does he get to his radical solution? Resting on half-truths, misrepresentations, and the odious disparate-impact theory, Hasbrouck claims that today, “Black votes in this country are worth less than white votes.” Is this because of official state sanction and restriction? Is it possibly because of corporate practices that might be proxies for government action? No, it’s not, and he provides no evidence to support that proposition.

The professor claims that the votes of black people count less solely because of where they live. Though America’s Constitution explicitly protects your freedom to travel within the U.S. and to live wherever you desire, Hasbrouck has decided there are not enough black voters in places like Wyoming — and too many in Georgia and Michigan. Because they have voluntarily chosen not to re-locate to the states Hasbrouck has selected, the entire election system should be thrown out.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/12/report-democrats-feeling-gloomy-over-election.php

The Washington Post reports that “Democrats see grim prospects in final election results despite Biden’s win.” The main reason for Democrats’ pessimism is Joe Biden’s poor performance in precincts the Democrats think they should carry easily. The Post’s Michael Scherer writes:

Voters in the once Democratic Ohio county that surrounds the shuttered Lordstown General Motors plant delivered a decisive victory last month to the sitting president who had promised and failed to save their jobs.

In the heavily Hispanic South Bronx, the liberal sanctum of San Francisco and the immigrant-rich neighborhoods of Miami, President Trump also shrank Democratic margins by drawing thousands more to his side. He even swept the 31 Iowa counties that voted twice for Barack Obama before choosing Trump in 2016. . . .

Party strategists now speak privately with a sense of gloom and publicly with a tone of concern as the election results become clearer. They worry about the potential emergence of a mostly male and increasingly interracial working-class coalition for Republicans that will cut into the demographic advantages Democrats had long counted on.

Biden still outpolled President Trump by around 7 million votes (minus whatever one thinks the number of fraudulent votes was). And given the structure of the American economy, the “working class” isn’t large enough to carry the day for Republicans, at least not as long as Democrats hold the edge with its non-White members.

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/12/23/key-trump-adviser-peter-navarro-confirms-democrat-ballot-fraud/

As courts continue to invent excuses to refuse to hear the mounting documentation of a stolen 2020 presidential election, it is becoming clear that the final path to a resolution for the country may be found only by casting conflicting slates of electors in those states with evidence that President Donald Trump’s win was corruptly denied. The most detailed and persuasive outline of those election thefts can be found in Trump adviser Peter Navarro’s 36-page review of the election entitled “The Immaculate Deception – Six Key Dimensions of Voting Irregularities”.

After midnight on Election Day, the vote count in six battleground states was mysteriously halted – all at about the same time – and “everyone” was told to go home. At the time, Trump was comfortably ahead in four of the six states and headed to easy reelection. The vote margins for Trump on election night in the now suspect states were: Georgia – 356,945; Pennsylvania – 555,189; Michigan – 293,062; Wisconsin – 112,022.

In two more battleground states, Arizona and Nevada, Biden was only narrowly ahead. But projections showed that Trump would win when all the legal votes were properly counted.

Democrats have a long history of election tampering and ballot fraud, going back over the previous two centuries. The corrupt political machine in New York in the 1800s was called “Tammany Hall.” In the 20th century in Chicago, corruption was known by the name of former Mayor Richard Daley. The “Daley Machine” was ultimately exposed in the 1960 presidential election helping John Kennedy take Illinois from Richard Nixon. Plus, some dirty tricks in Texas put Kennedy over the top (former Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson of Texas was on the ballot that year as Kennedy’s vice president).

The practice in 1960 was to call Daley in Chicago and inform him of the number of votes needed in his city to overcome the downstate Republican votes. This year, that same tactic was employed in all six battleground states by various methods. In fact, the voting irregularities are more than enough to change the results in all six states, crying out for prompt correction. For example, in Georgia, a long-time Republican state, Biden’s final lead is only 11,779, with more than 400,000 ballots in question. In Arizona, another long-time Republican state, Biden’s margin is only 10,457, with over 100,000 disputed votes.