48 states and FCC File Antitrust Lawsuits To Break Up Facebook
By Pamela Geller / THE GELLER REPORT
For years we have been working to hold tech giants to account. We had to go back to the drawing board in our 2016 lawsuit
against these social media giants because welacked standing’ despite
Facebook’s relentless attacks on our pages. The basis of our suit was
challenging Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) under
the First Amendment, which provides immunity from lawsuits to Facebook,
Twitter, and YouTube, thereby permitting these social media giants to
engage in government-sanctioned censorship and discriminatory business
practices free from legal challenge.
Facebook and Google take in roughly half of all Internet ad revenue. According to the Wall Street Journal:
In the U.S., Alphabet Inc.’s Google drives 89% of internet search; 95% of young adults on the internet use a Facebook Inc. product; and Amazon.com
Inc. now accounts for 75% of electronic book sales. Those firms that
aren’t monopolists are duopolists: Google and Facebook absorbed 63% of
online ad spending last year; Google and Apple Inc. provide 99% of mobile phone operating systems; while Apple and Microsoft Corp. supply 95% of desktop operating systems. Read entire article here: https://gellerreport.com/2020/12/48-states-and-fcc-file-antitrust-lawsuits-against-facebook.html/
Voter Fraud Never Happens! (Except in These 10,000 Cases)
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of
The media have been lying about voter fraud for 20 years. The New York Times and The Washington Post will tell you: Let’s get something straight. There are only two cases of voter fraud in history and they were both Republicans.
NEVER? No voter fraud ever?
Nope!
That’s
your first clue they’re lying. Liberals don’t try to say partial-birth
abortion never happens. They don’t say black men killing cops never
happens. They don’t say immigrants ripping off government programs never
happens. Only voter fraud NEVER HAPPENS.
Trump's Last Two Stands
By:
Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots on Right Side
Patriots Radio
“Our job is to make sure that the Constitution is followed
and that every vote counts. In this case I am not sure every vote was
counted, not in the right way.” -Texas Attorney General
Ken Paxton
Here's a scary thought folks and it comes directly from the U.S.
Constitution. Following the January 23, 1933 ratification of the
Twentieth Amendment that set January 20th as Inauguration Day with
the then current president and vice-president’s terms ending at
precisely 12 noon, if at that time there is no final result in the
presidential race, the Speaker of the House, as in Nancy Pelosi,
would become the acting president of these United States until said
race was officially decided, called, and certified.
And with that being said we must now take a deep breath and also
remember never to underestimate President Donald J. Trump or his
legal team for time and again both have proven that what was once
thought impossible is indeed possible. And here I'm speaking of an
eleventh hour possibility of a second Trump presidential term, but
it's a term that will have to come either via the Electoral College
or the U.S. Supreme Court... or more likely via a combination of both.
That will be explained in a bit.
So while President Trump recently stated that he would accept and
only then concede defeat if media anointed president-elect Joe Biden
were to attain the must have 270 electoral votes, don't just assume
that Biden will necessarily reach that magic 270 number when the 538
Electoral College delegates meet next Monday, December 14th to cast
those all-important votes even though this past Tuesday the Supreme
Court rejected a Republican
appeal to undo the certification of Pennsylvania's election results.
"The application for injunctive relief
presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is
denied," werethe court's order...an
order which did not comment further or suggest any dissent among the
court's nine justices. But note that the denial only pertains to the "emergency" injunctive relief suit, it does NOT deny Rep. Mike Kelly's original voter fraud case itself, a case which is still pending before High Court.
So while the
Electoral College option for a President Trump victory technically still remains somewhat feasible...albeit it's a slim chance on
its own at best...a new case now on the SCOTUS emergency docket...a
case out of Texas...might just be the checkmate move we've been
waiting for. But before we delve into that case from Texas, first let's
revisit the Electoral College for just a bit. In Article II, Section
1, of the Constitution we find that it's the Electoral College
who is the actual determiner of who wins the presidential election
meaning that when one goes to the polls to vote for and hopefully
help elect their presidential candidate of choice, what one is really
doing is voting for a particular slate of electors who then cast
their ballots for president and vice president.
Now here note that while said electors...who are actually
appointed delegates...have technically “pledged to vote”
for the candidate who received the most votes in their state (as in
“winner takes all” except for Maine and Nebraska who
proportionately allocate their votes), most states do next to nothing
to stop their electors from breaking said pledge and voting for the
candidate of their choice (hopefully in this case President Trump).
And this is no matter that not too long ago the Supreme Court did
restrict the power of these what would now be called “faithless
electors” by ruling that each state can require its electors to
support the winner of their state's popular vote, thus leaving “faithless
electors” to face fines along with the possibility of being replaced
in 32 of our 50 states.
But with this particular presidential election being the poster
child for how to commit and get away with both voter and election
fraud, I'm more prone and so very definitely proud to call those who
would be “faithless electors” actually “conscientious
electors” for they now would become electors who willingly choose to
take a stand against overt injustice and cast their ballot not for basement
dwelling Joe Biden, but for President Trump even while knowing they
might be called to task.
So, if a majority of the current electors in any given state did
break ranks by ignoring their “winner takes all” pledge,
please know that they would not be the first to do so for the
Electoral College has on five different occasions in the past picked
a president who garnered fewer popular votes than his opponent. In
1824 the electors chose John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson; in
1876 they chose Rutherford B. Hayes over Samuel Tilden; in 1888 it
was Benjamin Harris over Grover Cleveland; in 2000 their choice was
George W. Bush over Al “I invented the Internet” Gore; and
thankfully in 2016 they chose Donald J. Trump over the media's
anointed, Obama shill, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
And know that the information I've cited regarding the Electoral
College and its delegates are things one expects would pertain to
what is a fair and transparent election not to an election riddled
with overt in-your-face fraud...which is unfortunately the hallmark
of this 2020 election. And with all the evidence now coming to light
regarding fraud having been committed...the Georgia video below shows
but one example...means that the laws regarding November's election's
integrity have knowingly and willingly been corrupted by those with a
decidedly dangerous political agenda...a criminal offense if ever
there was one. But until the Department of Justice steps in to do the
right thing...and with William Barr as attorney general I would not
hold my breath for that...it's up to the Republican majority of state
legislatures to ignore their state's “winner take
all” pledge and appoint their own electors, which federal law
does allow said legislatures to do if their states have “failed
to make a definitive choice” by the actual day the Electoral
College meets.
And really, how can a “definitive
choice” be made when voter
fraud investigations are still ongoing,and
with the a fore mentioned Texas case now on the High Court docket.
Simply, they cannot nor should they be made especially when the
only actual Electoral College decision deadline date required by the
Constitution itself is the January 20th deadline of 12 noon.
Now as for the Texas case...the
real hoped for smoking gun...a case that if the justices do the right
thing as per the Constitution...we will rightfully see the election
going President Trump's way. And here we first saw a legal brief
being filed with the U.S. Supreme Court urging the justices to look
into the conduct of the election in Pennsylvania where their state
court ignored the Constitution in regards to the conduct of the
election. In fact, Article 1, Section 4, of the Constitution states
that, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections
for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State
by the Legislature …” means
that the power for the conduct of federal elections is held by the
State Legislatures in each state, but that in states like
Pennsylvania and the other battleground states, the judicial branch,
as per the brief, attempted to “seize control of these
duties and obligations and to set their own rules,” hence
these actions do appear to be unconstitutional. Simply, if such an
action is unconstitutional for Pennsylvania it surely is
unconstitutional for other states as well.
And so this passed Monday, Texas
Attorney General Ken Paxton directly petitioned the Supreme
Court...as in he filed a lawsuit against the battleground states of Georgia,
Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin... claiming that changes made
in these states regarding election procedures due to the COVID-19
pandemic actually violated federal law by instituting changes to
election policies, whether they be “through executive fiat or friendly
lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity.” And Paxton wrote
that these changes, which actually do require a state constitutional
amendment to authorize said changes, allowed for voter fraud to
occur, and thus the High Court should push back the December 14th
deadline by which states must appoint their presidential electors.
So here regarding the Electoral College, the Texas case might win
where the Pennsylvania case failed.
Also, in this lawsuit Paxton and his attorneys rightfully stated
that,“That deadline, however, should not cement a potentially
illegitimate election result in the middle of this storm,” to whichAG Ken Paxton and the others are most
assuredly right. But in more simplistic terms, what the Texas AG rightfully did was
ask the Supreme Court to block said battleground states from
casting "unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes" when the Electoral College assembles. And this request now ties directly back into what I stated earlier regarding the Electoral College, as this newest lawsuit, if
won, will not only affect the Electoral College vote
but will decide who really won the 2020 election...which I believe was President Trump.
And to give this lawsuit even more punch, if you will, know that
Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina,
and South Dakota (and that number as I go to publication is up to 17 states) have all announced that they will be joining Texas
in said lawsuit. And also know that this case cannot and is not being
ignored by the SCOTUS because it's a fact that when a state files a
lawsuit against another state, said lawsuit, by law, goes straight to
the Supreme Court which it now has, and is now on the court's
emergency docket. And this is much to the chagrin of Michigan AG
Dana Nessel who claimed that Paxton's lawsuit suit was but "a
publicity stunt, not a serious legal pleading." Tell that
to the Supreme Court Ms. Nessel.
So while the
justices set a Thursday deadline for the four battleground states to
respond to Paxton's claims, their responding to said claims does not signal
the end for the SCOTUS by law must still hear the case, hence it's on
their docket. And I wouldn't be surprised if Sen. Ted Cruz is the
one to argue the case before the High Court for no one knows the
constitutional legalities of the law better than he does.
So now we sit and wait for the
Texas case to be heard and for the evidence to be presented. And if
the justices do the job the Constitution tasked them with...while
most definitely putting partisan politics aside...and if they par
down all allegations to simply following the letter of Constitutional
law...they will not only rule in Texas' favor, but call to task those
who willfully and with malice intended tried to sway what is supposed
to be a free and fair election. And for the uninformed and the
misinformed this simply means that all legal votes must be and will
counted and that all illegal, fraudulent, and unverified votes must
be and will be thrown out. And really, isn't that what the
Constitution and “We the People” should
not only ask for but demand...I would surely hope so. Case closed.
************************************************************************************* For more political commentary please visit my RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS partner Craig Andresen's blog The National Patriot to read his latest article, COVID-19 and FRAUD-2020.
Tomorrow, Friday, December 11th, from 7 to 9pm EST, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS
Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss 'Trump's Last Two Stands'; 'COVID-19 and FRAUD-2020'; and important
news of the day.
Hope you can tune in to RIGHT
SIDE PATRIOTSon
rspradio1.com. Click 'LISTEN
LIVE' starting
at 6:50 pm EST with the show beginning at 7pm EST.
