How team Biden allegedly used Big Tech to censor

Jeff Landry:

The First Amendment is the bedrock of American liberty. Our citizens have the right, if not civic duty, to engage in open, dynamic discourse, and no government has the right to limit, suppress, censor or otherwise control it.

Yet as we dig deeper into discovery in our Big Tech censorship case — Missouri and Louisiana v. Biden — we uncover ever more truly appalling abuses of power that President Biden’s director of digital strategy, Rob Flaherty, admitted come from “the highest (and I mean highest) levels of the” White House.

Such evidence proves the Biden administration is leveraging its power to coerce social media companies to suppress the speech of thousands, if not millions, of Americans who disagree with its political narratives.

Naturally, the First Amendment prohibits censorship. Yet the Biden team has worked to circumvent this fundamental constitutional protection by inducing, threatening and colluding with private companies to suppress speech. It’s illegal — but when Big Government enters into such a conspiracy with Big Business to violate your rights, it’s also known by another name: fascism.
...

Either way, totalitarianism cannot tolerate free thought or speech any more than a petulant Flaherty can tolerate a tech company showing even a moment’s hesitation at fulfilling Biden’s demands for increased censorship.

When Facebook didn’t answer one of his emails in a chain demanding the company take down a Tucker Carlson video, after it told him “it does not qualify for removal,” Flaherty sent a one-line followup: “These questions weren’t rhetorical.”

Both democracy and a constitutional republic require frequent and open debate to function and survive. When that exchange of ideas is silenced, we all become ignorant of the true nature of things — severely inhibiting our ability to self-govern. If we do not know what is actually happening, how can we possibly make informed decisions?

The trouble is totalitarianism requires a ruthless conformity and complete allegiance to the cause of the state without argument. That pattern of behavior, and utter contempt for our Constitution, is blatantly obvious in Flaherty’s hostile emails to Facebook, Twitter and Google.

“As we move away from a supply problem toward a demand problem,” Flaherty wrote to seven employees of YouTube parent Google in April 2021, “we remain concerned” YouTube “is ‘funneling’ people into hesitance and intensifying people’s hesitancy” about the vaccine.

“Needless to say,” he warned, “in a couple of weeks when we’re having trouble getting people to get vaccinated, we’ll be in the barrel together here.”

Flaherty knows what he’s doing is wrong: “We certainly recognize that removing content that is unfavorable to the cause of increasing vaccine adoption is not a realistic — or even good — solution.” But that never stops him or other Biden officials from coercing, conspiring and colluding with tech companies in illegal conduct.
...

Landry is the Louisiana Attorney General who is working with the Missouri Attorney General to unravel the Big Tech censorship case and those behind the effort.  There is evidence that the Biden regime was behind some of the censorship.  This looks like it could be another count in an impeachment indictment.

See, also:

Who Are the Laziest and Nastiest Reporters in the Swamp? Mike Pompeo Has a List

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more

Bin Laden's concern about Zarqawi's remains

James Robbins: ... Bin Laden suggests that President Bush should allow Zarqawi’s body to be returned to his family in Jordan, but this is a matter that is up to the Jordanian government, which so far has not shown much interest in facilitating a homecoming. Bin Laden mocks King Abdullah II, calling him a Coalition minion, and asking “w hat scares you about Abu Musab after he’s dead? You know that his funeral, if allowed to happen, would be a huge funeral showing the extent of sympathy with the mujahedin.” A large crowd would definitely turn out, though most people would be on hand to demonstrate their anger and disgust. Last November’s hotel bombings in Amman , masterminded by Zarqawi, are still fresh in people’s memory, and mentioning them to Jordanians has the same visceral impact as memory of the 9/11 attacks does here. Jordan has adopted a zero-tolerance policy towards those who choose to mourn the country’s least favorite son, and four opposition members of parliament who paid con
Read more