Sedition

One Alec Rawls has written an excellent piece on what is going on with the Mar-a-Lago raid.  It does not address all the issues but does an excellent job on the intent of the Demo-Communists who would turn the country into a totalitarian state.

This attack on Trump is the real seditious conspiracy: a giant conspiracy to suppress the civil rights of half the country by removing their leader from electoral contention.

There is, in fact, a constitutional provision that names and blocks this exact kind of subversion of electoral politics, but thanks to 150 years of Supreme Court incompetence, it is not enforced. That is the Article IV section 4 guarantee to the states that they shall have a republican form of government.

The states are all under the federal government so this guarantee implies that the federal government is also restricted to the republican form, which means most fundamentally, in the words of Alexander Hamilton at the NY debates: “that the people shall choose who shall represent them.”

This can be violated in a number of basic ways. One is through election stealing, as took place in the 2020 elections. The Democrats have now implemented, through various forms of vote fraud and electoral fraud, the Stalinist phony democracy where “what matters is not who votes but who counts the votes.”

This is the anthesis of republican government, which requires that it is the people who choose, not the vote counters, meaning that election counts must be *honest*, and not affected in any degree by the vote counters.

But vote fraud is not the only way to block the electoral will of the people. Another is to use the powers of the state to impede or even criminalize political opposition. We see this often in third world countries. Zelensky, for instance, recently went full totalitarian in Ukraine, outlawing all political opposition. And this is what Democrats are doing with their J6 investigations; with their well-financed efforts to “cancel” Trumps lawyers and other allies; with their unleashing of the IRS on political opponents (Lois Learner), etcetera.

Another way to block political opposition is by censoring free speech, first of all by government action: colluding with internet niche monopolists to ban opposing speech, setting up ministries of truth to make the government the official arbiter of truth, with competing information dishonestly labeled as “disinformation,” etcetera, all of which is being undertaken by our current Democratic Party.

I will touch on one area which is not directly connected to the Mar-a-Lago raid to illustrate the suppression of free speech in this country.  This is in the area of climate change/global warming/global cooling.

As any reputable scientist in this field who is not dependent on government funding for his/her existence will tell you, the science is far from settled.  President Obama’s pronouncement that the science was settled is a very clear attempt to suppress theories that differ from the one put forward that CO2 is causing the planet to burn up.  Although you would not know it from reading Big Media, there actually are competing theories about what causes changes in the earth’s overall temperature.

There have been periods during the last two millennia when the planet was significantly warmer than it is today.  There was the Roman warm period and the one during the Middle Ages when Greenland was colonized by the Vikings.  Did fossil fuel use cause those warm periods?  I think not.

How do the climate models that are put forth to charge CO2 with being an existential threat, deal with these previous warm periods in history?  To put it simply, they don’t.  One researcher went as far as to manipulate historical data to try to make it appear that these warm periods did not exist.

Global warming is a political issue.  However, suppression of competing theories in global warming pales in comparison to the censoring of free speech that is going on with the Mar-a-Lago raid.  And this censoring of speech is going on all over Big Media.

Rawls continues:

And there can be private conspiracies to suppress civil rights, which were criminalized under the Civil Rights Acts. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gives internet companies substantial protection from those conspiracy charges, but not if the political censorship is the intent.

That is my interpretation of the code section, which includes a “good faith” requirement:

(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or …

Thus under section 230 it is okay if censorship of objectionable content ends up censoring constitutionally protected speech, so long as this is done in “good faith.” What else could “good faith” mean here but that the censorship of constitutionally protected speech must not the intent of the censorship, that it is only allowable if it is must be an incidental by-product of some other intent. 

Just about none of the massive political censorship we are now seeing from our internet monopolists is the least bit incidental. It is almost entirely driven by a direct desire to censor opposing political speech, which is the most protected speech under the First Amendment, so almost none of the massive ongoing political censorship ought be held to be protected under Section 230.

Enforcement of the republican guarantee would go further, making something like the Civil Rights Acts, together with this bar on intent to censor protected speech, a *mandatory* requirement for any form of government to fall within the constitutionally mandated “republican form of government.”

What Rawls is saying here is that the censoring of political free speech that we see going on under Section 230 of the Communications Act is impermissible.  The ability to speak freely on political matters is one of the most basic freedoms that we should be able to enjoy.  Big Media is colluding to kill this freedom.

All of these subversions of democracy that we are seeing the Democrats perpetrate today, every one of them would properly be barred by the republican guarantee, and would be actionable, if only the Supreme Court was doing its job and enforcing this most important provision of our entire Constitution. Instead they have vitiated the republican guarantee with the most foolish misunderstandings of its fundamental purpose.

I believe that the right case can rectify this deficiency, and could be brought before the Court now and win, but that would be another too-long comment.

PDJT has evidence that shows the complicity of the government in suppressing the will of the people via sham investigations.  It continues today.  The World Economic Foundation (WEF) is attempting to extend this suppression of our freedoms with their efforts at having each person have a single digital ID which would be used to participate in society.  Then, if the government did not approve of one’s opinions, one could be dismissed from participation in society by the click of a keystroke.

The WEF suggests that this data collection dragnet would allow a digital ID to scoop up data on people’s online behavior, purchase history, network usage, credit history, biometrics, names, national identity numbers, medical history, travel history, social accounts, e-government accounts, bank accounts, energy usage, health stats, education, and more.

Once the digital ID has access to this huge, highly personal data set, the WEF proposes using it to decide whether users are allowed to “own and use devices,” “open bank accounts,” “carry out online financial transactions,” “conduct business transactions,” “access insurance, treatment,” “book trips,” “go through border control between countries or regions,” “access third-party services that rely on social media logins,” “file taxes, vote, collect benefits,” and more.

This is totalitarianism in the digital age.  PDJT is in the way of this happening.  That is why they are going all out to deny him a role in our political arena.