I just don’t get it. I never thought I’d see a day when I wished Democrats were actually liberal. Even though many of us routinely use the words Democrat, leftist, progressive, and liberal interchangeably, as Dan Bongino often says, “precision matters.” There is a reason some call modern libertarianism classical liberalism. Among other things, historically, liberals stood for individual liberty, constitutional rights, and civil rights. Ironically, leftist liberals started the 1960s free speech movement on the Berkeley Campus.
This neo-Democrat-socialist Party, having abandoned the First Amendment and democratic principles of fair elections, wants you to believe some fantastical things. For example, because they don’t like President Trump’s gruff style and demeanor (what he says and how he says it), he is Hitler’s twin. In reality, the Democrat Party doesn’t like that Trump beat them—period. In fact, they can’t stand that he legitimately won the presidency. They can’t stand that he’s kept his promises. But, most of all, they abhor that he’s been so successful.
Stealing an election was not enough. They want to make sure no one ever tries to take the swamp’s power again. Using their media and never-Trump Republican allies in Congress, they want to eviscerate this man—and those who support his goals. They want to make sure no one like him will ever even contemplate running for office. Again, though “normal” Democrats didn’t prefer Trump, which is fine, is this the type of “politics” ordinary Democrats support—that of personal destruction and cheating at the ballot box?
MORE NEWS: Kamioner: Democrats Love Bomb Syria
Let me ask you, where are the civil rights in purging conservatives from social media platforms that are supposed to be an open and fair public square, as they were intended to be. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court referred to social media as, “the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge.” Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion, joined by Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Alito wrote a separate concurring opinion.
Not today social media is not a free and open public square. How can you reconcile companies that allow communist and Islamofascist dictators—murderers—to keep their accounts while suspending, throttling, or permanently removing from their “platforms” ordinary conservatives and the President of the United States?
Think about that: China’s leader can put Muslims in concentration, slave-labor camps, and Iran’s Ayatollah can have protesters shot in the streets by the hundreds and sponsor terror around the world, but they are allowed to post on Twitter. But these same companies won’t allow conservative Americans to express their thoughts simply because they don’t like those thoughts.
Hey, normal Democrats! That is fascism right there staring you in the face. Okay, so you don’t believe the evidence in front of your eyes about what looks an awful lot like massive voter fraud in the 2020 elections. Fine. However, if there was no voter fraud, why the Democrat, including news and social media, frenzy before and after the election to eradicate and censor any media report of any kind about suspicious, observable things that happened during the election? If election fraud is so “baseless,” then why the war against information? Hey, normal Democrats! Does this sound like the America you want to live in?
People from both political sides used to agree with the well-known adage, “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” It seems, only conservatives and libertarians agree with that sentiment, today. Even the ACLU is finally speaking out about the “unchecked power,” of Facebook and Twitter—did I say finally? Certainly not before the election, right?
How about just these items of evidence from the election that have been verified and, as a retired cop, have me incensed. Democrat voting facilities would not allow access to Republican and, in some cases, Democrat observers. Probably because those were ordinary Democrats who care about an honest election. And there is video of Democrats putting cardboard up to block the view of vote counting. Also, we saw video of vote counters applauding when Republican observers were kicked out of facilities. The Republican legislature in Pennsylvania has also announced official numbers showing that more ballots were counted than voters who voted. That happened! These alone should have been sufficient to investigate, but the Democrats and Republican swamp stood in the way. Why?
And why would Facebook ban Brandon Straka’s #walkaway page? He was simply posting Democrats’ opinions for leaving the Democrat Party to encourage other Democrats to leave, too? So what? Under the Constitution, this is obviously allowed free speech. Why should an unbiased platform, as FB claims it is, care if someone wants to encourage Democrats or Republicans to join or leave a party? Isn’t that what America’s “public square” is supposed to be? But social media, which benefits from a special government dispensation excluding it from lawsuits brought by its customers, doesn’t care one googol about the people’s constitutional or civil rights.
Academic institutions that accept government funds have federal constraints, for example, Title IX. So, why should 47 U.S. Code 230 allow Twitter, YouTube, Google, Facebook, and other social media and high tech to pretend they are simple objective platforms, like telephone lines, and not editing publishers and censors of internet content? Of course, now that the Democrats will control the federal government, and since they have adopted the same extreme censorship as an official policy, I suppose there will be no more pressure for these high-tech bullies and their Democrat enablers to stop abusing the American people.