Utterly Illegal

And the Progressive-Democrats don’t care. They have the power, so they don’t need any stinking authority, and they’re going ahead: with censorship of what average Americans are allowed to say, even allowed to know.

The White House announced their efforts with Facebook to take aggressive action on problematic social media posts. The administration said they would work to flag and censor anything they deemed to be disinformation about COVID-19.

Biden’s Surgeon General Dr Vivek Murthy:

We expect more from our technology companies. We’re asking them to operate with greater transparency and accountability. We are asking them to monitor misinformation more closely.

Biden himself, through his Press Secretary, Jen Psaki:

“There are also proposed changes we have made to social media platforms, including Facebook….

And

We are flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation[.]

And overt spying on private citizens’ personal communications to facilitate the censorship, per the Progressive-Democratic Party’s Democratic National Committee:

…plans to work with SMS carriers to monitor text messages and dispel misinformation about vaccines.
“If you send a text message to a friend or to a family member or to whoever and it includes whatever they deem as misinformation that somehow you’re going to get a message on your phone from the government,” David Rubin of the Rubin Report.

And the threat, from none other than President Joe Biden (D):

Mr Biden was asked what his message was to social media platforms when it came to Covid-19 disinformation.
“They’re killing people,” he said. “Look, the only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated, and that—and they’re killing people.”

Never mind that the censorship is a blatant violation of our 1st Amendment and of long-standing and myriad case law:

As recently as 2019, the Supreme Court reasoned “‘a private entity can qualify as a state actor,’ subject to First Amendment protections….” Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck (2019) …;
“When the private entity performs a traditional, exclusive public function,” Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. (1974);
“When the government compels the private entity to take a particular action,” Blum v. Yaretsky, (1982);
“When the government acts jointly with the private entity.” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. (1982).

The government doesn’t get to avoid censorship by farming out its censoring to third parties.

And there’s this: it’s well established in Civil Rights law and Supreme Court rulings that private enterprises that are public accommodations (of which diners are a canonical example) may not discriminate, under the 14th Amendment, on the basis of race. It’s an easy extension of that “may not discriminate” to include 1st Amendment speech, and it’s quite clear that Facebook et al., have become, if they weren’t created as, public accommodations.

Us average Americans need to keep this blatant disregard for our Constitution firmly in mind in November 2022.

 

H/t Grim’s Hall

Human Rights Violations

The nation that fought a civil war to end slavery, whose people passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, put an end to Jim Crow laws now is to be the subject of a UN-run(!) human rights investigation. This is at the invitation of the Progressive-Democrat President, Joe Biden, and his Progressive-Democrat Secretary of State, Antony Blinken.

The Progressive-Democratic Party, a 21st century evolution of the Democratic Party.

It was the Democratic Party that forced that civil war so that Democrats in their effort to keep their slaves and create more.

It was the Democratic Party that created the KKK, whose Democrat white supremacist domestic terrorists lynched freed blacks and those whites who supported them.

It was the Democratic Party that pushed gun control to keep blacks disarmed in the face of the Democrats’ KKK atrocities.

It was the Democratic Party that enacted Jim Crow laws explicitly intended to keep blacks from voting.

It was the Democratic Party that resegregated the Federal government after Republicans had succeeded, in the main, in integrating it in the post-Civil War years.

It was the Democratic Party that nationalized minimum wage laws explicitly to keep blacks trapped on southern plantations instead of being able to move north to compete on wages for factory jobs.

It was the Democratic Party that built racist and sexist affirmative action programs with welfare cliffs built in so as to keep blacks and other minorities trapped in the Democrats’ welfare cages.

We have now that party’s modern evolution, the Progressive-Democratic Party. That evolution has all of this in its short history:

It is the Progressive-Democratic Party that continues to pursue race- and sex-based affirmative action.

It is the Progressive-Democratic Party that pursues racist college and university admission preferences.

It is the Progressive-Democratic Party that objects to blacks and other minorities having access to quality K-12 schooling by blocking voucher and charter schools and by suing States to prevent black children from switching from failing public schools to voucher/private schools.

It is the Progressive-Democratic Party that pursues identity politics, which is nothing but 1950s-era racist segregation brought forward to the 21st century to include sexist segregation alongside racist segregation.

If Progressive-Democrats are really concerned about human rights violations, they need to look in their mirrors.

A Thought on Judges Retiring

Article III Judges are appointed to their office for life. This is by entirely correct design and mandated in our Constitution: it’s to maximize the political independence of the judges in our court system.

Engraved above the west entrance to the Supreme Court Building is the promise Equal Justice Under Law. Not equal justice on the law, not equal justice under any particular law. Equal justice under law: equal justice under our system of laws. That’s not a binding promise, it’s an aspiration. Binding, though, is our Constitution, which aside from Order[ing] to form a more perfect Union, provides for that equal justice throughout the first 10 Amendments and makes that requirement for equality under law explicit in the 14th Amendment:

…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

All of that requires judges to be independent of politics.  We the People go further: all Article III judges must take an oath of office:

I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Support and defend our Constitution. Judges must bear true faith and allegiance to our Constitution, not to any political consideration or entity.

Supreme Court Justices take this additional oath:

I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.

There’s that equal justice under law bit, again, this time made binding. Again: it isn’t possible for a Justice to faithfully and impartially discharge or perform his duties if politics enter into his considerations.

Against that backdrop was a shocking degree of Leftist pressure on the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to retire while a Progressive-Democrat President was in office along with a Progressive-Democrat-controlled Senate so that a politically suitable replacement could be appointed to the Supreme Court. Now there is equally shocking Leftist pressure on Justice Stephen Breyer to retire right damn now so a sitting Progressive-Democrat President and a Progressive-Democrat-controlled Senate can appoint a politically acceptable replacement.

Politically acceptable. Not legally adept. Not judicially talented and skilled. Not qualified by extensive experience in law. Politically acceptable.

If our court systems are to maintain even a pretense of independence, if our legal system is to maintain even a pretense of determining justice in an even-handed way, rather than making politically acceptable decisions, judges at all levels must serve as long as they’re of sound mind and sound enough body, and they must retire only when they see fit rather than when it’s politically convenient to one party or another.

Sadly, Progressive-Democrats and their Leftist supporters insist on elevating their politics above justice.

A Brief Thought on Communism

The latest, and longest lasting, defense of communism is that it’s mismanaged (earlier defenses put it as “not done right, not implemented right.”

Stipulate that a problem with communism (and each of its socialist variants—socialism, fascism, social democracy, etc) is that it’s mismanaged.

That no communism or socialist variation has ever succeeded in all of human history is a clear demonstration that nations, or economies, cannot be managed successfully from the center. It’s just too hard, nations and economies are too complex to be…managed…from the center.

Finally

The distinction between the coward’s (or liar’s) leak and a whistleblower’s claim is being more broadly recognized. Jason Foster, Founder and President of Empower Oversight Whistleblowers & Research (EMPOWR) had this the other day via Just the News:

People misunderstand that “there is a difference between blowing the whistle, which is legal, and protected—and, arguably, your patriotic duty, right—and leaking,” Foster told the John Solomon Reports podcast. “Leaking is completely different … leaking is illegal, a lot of the time, or against policy of the agency. And it’s often the cowardly way out, as opposed to the patriotic thing to do.”

And now, once again, the press must stop hiding under its collective typing desk and answer the question (among others), because members of the press know full well that distinction:

If representing a claimed source as a whistleblower, what is their concrete, measurable evidence that this source has used up all of his employer’s internal whistleblowing channels before he decided to leak?

Along with that, the press must answer these questions related to the integrity of their claimed source:

If the source exists, then
–Why the source should be believed, given that by speaking publicly, even if anonymously, he’s likely violating his terms of employment if not his oath of office
–Why the source should be believed, given that by hiding behind anonymity, he’s displaying his cowardice—and cowards will always and only say what they believe will be personally beneficial