Let's be frank ... a lot of us have been leery of Facebook and its cabal of programmers, administrators, promoters, fact-checkers, and even its creator, and many have even walked away from the liberal platform. No one who posts with good and honest intent should be silenced on account of viewpoint diversity. Freedom of Speech should always be respected, as long as it does not incite imminent violence or discuss prurient sexual matters. I have not yet abandoned Facebook and use it mainly to communicate with family and friends and to share pics of my family, many pics of my flowers, my plants, my many pets, and my pics of nature. It gives me great pleasure to share my pics. It used to give me great pleasure to comment on social issues, political party matters, and government policy. I used to enjoy hearing the many views from my many friends and family members. But that is pretty much all over. Again, I don't want the insult and embarrassment of being censored for daring to take a position that is at odds with Mark Zuckerberg and his Facebook people - folks far less informed, far less rational, less educated, younger, and far less experienced than the average conservative American citizen.
But the truth is that lately, I posted a few docu-movies, podcasts, and articles on Facebook (in "group"
pages) addressing the unconstitutional abuse of power by a deranged and politically-motivated set of Congressmen and Senators to harass, tarnish, and potentially oust President Trump from office, and then addressing the unsettling amount of dishonesty, animus-based scheming, election tampering, purposeful intervention in the vote counting, and other very troubling election irregularities. One docu-movie in particular that I posted - "ABSOLUTE TRUTH - Exposing Election Fraud and the Theft of America by Enemies Foreign and Domestic,"
by Mike Lindell (the 'My Pillow'
guy), Mary Fanning, and Brannon Howse was flagged and cited as "containing false information."
Facebook fact-checkers claim that this video contains false information and they felt justified in placing several restrictive messages around the post.
First of all, all the fact checkers with Facebook are ultra-liberals. And second of all, liberals don't deal with facts at all - they deal with ambition, power, messaging, and agenda. They cry "diversity" all the time, but all they really mean is that they want persons of all different color skin, different ethnicities, and different religions at the same table. It's all about the outward differences or diversity of such person. The real type of diversity is in thought and in viewpoint, but this is the type of diversity that the left absolutely detests and the type it uses all possible means to resist. The left will embrace all "diversity"
type persons as long as they are of the same mindset, they support the Democratic platform, or they can help advance the Democratic agenda.
We may not all be brainiacs, but we are not stupid. We have eyes, we have intuition, and we all know how corrupted and power-hungry the Democratic Party and other liberal/progressive groups have become. We have seen their outright abusive and unconstitutional conduct and government action for at least 12 years now. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
(Lord John Dalberg). We know the 2020 presidential election was the product of massive intentional election fraud, election tampering, voter fraud, and election irregularities, all for the singular purpose of making sure Donald Trump would not continue to sit in the White House.
For a summary of such "election fraud, election tampering, voter fraud, and election irregularities," please refer to the podcasts and articles cited below.
Now, as some people are aware, I am an attorney. I was educated at a prestigious law school and did very well, I passed the bar exam in two states in the highest percentile group, and I complemented that education with extensive research and training on my own. As an attorney, there are two very important doctrines, or methods of analysis, in law to guide law enforcement, private investigators, and attorneys as they try to solve crimes and tort claims: One such "doctrine or method of analysis"
is that in the absence of an eyewitness, the mere act, action, or actions speak for themselves. The latin term is called "res ipsa loquitur (meaning "the act speaks for itself"
). A classic example of the type of case in which "res ipsa loquitur"
arises is where a sponge or other medical instrument is left inside a person after surgery. Typically, records of the surgery will not include a statement such as "Dr. Smith left forceps in patient's abdomen,"
and there may be no recorded proof of how or why the negligence occurred. Yet clearly, a surgical instrument would not be left in a patient in the absence of someone's negligence. Also, an unconscious patient certainly cannot be deemed responsible for this type of injury, and it would have been the operating physician and staff who had exclusive control over the surgical tools. So, "res ipsa loquitur"
would likely apply here.
The second "method of analysis"
that the criminal justice system or tort lawyer has at his or her disposal is one where a claim of wrongdoing is assessed not merely by looking at one factor, but by looking at the "totality of the circumstances." In the law, the totality of the circumstances test refers to a method of analysis where decisions are based on all available information rather than bright-line rules. Under the totality of the circumstances test, courts focus "on all the circumstances of a particular case, rather than any one factor."
Sometimes a string of "inconsistencies"
(too great to be a mere coincidence) speaks to a mens rea (an intent); it speaks to intentional wrongdoing.
These two doctrines, or methods of analysis, are what come into play when we talk about how the Democrats in office (including their collusion with the media, the "Deep State," and even the national Democratic Party) targeted and relentlessly harassed President Trump for four long years (especially when they weaponized the government against him over and over again), we well as what happened with the 2020 election. [Refer back to the paragraph where I direct interested readers to a list of resources (mostly podcasts and articles) which provide a summary of the enormity of documented instances of "election fraud, election tampering, voter fraud, and election irregularities].
What troubles me is that law schools (almost all of them being liberal) believe and teach that government can make whatever law it wants and regulate whatever it wants to, and that the courts SHOULD, and most often do, rubber stamp such action by applying the "Living, breathing document"
approach. Liberal justices on the courts have adopted this illegal and improper approach in order to get around the original meaning, scope, and intent of the Constitution. (Oh, and by the way, history teachers in our public school system teach this as the correct approach). It is clearly and offensively inconsistent with legitimate contract law. But as I have stated clearly in the description of this site, I am an "originalist,"
certainly in the mold of justices such as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. I have studied history extensively and I have researched almost completely and understand implicitly our founding documents (the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution). As the Declaration explicitly articulates, governments are created by the People, and instituted thru social compact to transfer governing authority from them to the government for specific purposes. The Constitution is such a social compact. All our founders referred to it as such. And so, it is WE the PEOPLE who have created the federal government. It is a "creation,"
not an omnipotent institution. We are the masters over our government, and we MUST think in such terms. The government is for us and for our benefit, and as it stands now, that doctrine is still firmly planted in our Declaration of Independence and in the US Constitution. The liberal professors at our almost exclusively liberal law schools don't get this.
It has been the irresponsible and reckless agenda-driven, politically-driven, and ideology-driven judges on the federal courts who have flipped this originalist doctrine (which we can call "individual sovereignty"
- the predominant theme in the Declaration) and substituted the "living, breathing document" approach for the government's sake and benefit. In other words, while the courts should be the final check and defender of our sacred founding documents, to maintain their integrity and for the sake of our republic, they have instead collided with the legislative and executive branches to create an almost perfect monopoly for the federal government on the meaning, scope, and intent of the Constitution.
Instead of dismissing the claims of election tampering, election fraud, voter fraud, election irregularities, hacking of the ballot machine software, excluding conservative poll workers while liberal ones remain behind to "fix defective ballots,"
the fraudulent exploitation of mail-in ballots, and the dropping off of questionable boxes of ballots that have no proper recordation, the state governments, the courts, and the Department of Justice (the Attorney General), SHOULD HAVE made a good-faith investigation into each of them. After all, what has the Democratic Party done for the past 4 years?? Were they boy scouts and girl scouts? They brought fabricated and spurious impeachment charges against President Trump (all the time excluding all Republican congressmen), they used and paid for a knowingly fabricated dossier by Christopher Steele (a British former intelligence officer with the Secret Intelligence Service from 1987 until his retirement in 2009, who then ran the Russia desk at MI6 headquarters in London between 2006 and 2009) to use against Trump as proof of his Russian Collusion in the 2020 election (it was part of their "back-up plan"
), they used that same fabricated Steele dossier to trick the secret FISA court to issue warrants to use surveillance on Trump as a candidate for president in 2016 (again, it was part of their "back-up plan"
), they called for and appointed a Special Independent Counsel to investigate Trump for Russian Collusion and election tampering, they colluded with the liberal mainstream media to label President Trump as an absolute racist, xenophobe, and liar, they hounded and embarrassed him for not turning over his tax returns, they targeted his advisors and cabinet members for harassment and hatred ("make them feel they are not wanted here"
- Maxine Waters), and more. Again, this is precisely what I mean when I suggested (using my legal background) that the above allegations should be looked at "under the totality of the circumstances."
Extreme ambition is and has been the motivation of all the wrongdoing that has been alleged.
The fact-checkers probably have no idea what I am talking about.
RESOURCES ADDRESSING ELECTION IRREGULARITIES & OTHER WRONGDOING:
"About the 'Election Fraud' Database," The Heritage Foundation
Alexa Corse, "Election Fraud: A State-by-State Guide," The Wall Street Journal
, January 6, 2021
Jane Recker, "Voting-Rights Expert: Serious Election Irregularities Are Terrifyingly Likely in November," Washingtonian
, June 12, 2021
PODCAST: Newt Gingrich
, "State-by-State Look at Voting Irregularities,"
MARK LEVIN PODCAST: "2020 Election Fraud,"
MARK LEVIN PODCAST: "DOWNLOAD REPORT HERE! Major Election Fraud Report Out - THE IMMACULATE DECEPTION: Six Key Dimensions,"
BEN SHAPIRO PODCAST
: "The Democrats Break All the Rules"
BEN SHAPIRO PODCAST
: "The Fact Checkers are Full of Sh*t"
BEN SHAPIRO PODCAST
: "Is Secession Upon Us?"
BEN SHAPIRO PODCAST: "Why Americans Have Election Trust Issues"
BEN SHAPIRO PODCAST
: "Who Really Rigged the (2020 presidential) Election?"
Here is a perfect example of how the hate-filled, agenda-driven, and power-hungry leftists have perverted and abused the Constitution for pure ambition purposes: The Constitution, in Article II, has some very specific requirements should the topic of impeaching a president come up. For one, it says when the president (ie, a sitting president) is impeached, the articles of impeachment passed by Congress shall be presented to the Senate for a trial, by which 2/3 of the Senate members must vote to convict. The Chief Justice
of the US Supreme Court is to preside. Remember, the ultimate purpose of an impeachment is to remove the president from office for any crime rising to the level of a "high crime or misdemeanor." When Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called Chief Justice John Roberts to preside over Trump's second impeachment trial, Roberts declined. That alone should be a signal that the entire trial is unconstitutional. After all, Donald Trump is no longer in the White House and is now a private citizen. As Roberts said: "Heck no, I'm not coming across the street because you're not impeaching this (ex-) president." The purpose of the second impeachment attempt is moot since he is already out of office, unless the purpose is to taint his legend so badly that he won't be able to run in 2024.
"When a Doctor's Negligence 'Speaks for Itself',"
Alllaw. Referenced here