Zuckerberg’s Hand In The Ballot Box & Censorship Threatens National SecurityPrint This Post
AbleChild is compelled to write this article, as we feel strongly about the censorship that is taking place throughout our Nation. Our organization has fought long and hard for informed consent and has experienced censorship by big tech, pharma, and the media.
After holding election fraud hearings in Pennsylvania, Arizona and Michigan this past week, filled with witness testimony about alleged wrongdoing that the mainstream media failed to cover even a second of, Trump is taking further measures to end censorship by Big Tech and the media. Trump announced on Twitter at 9:45 pm last night that if Congress does not do away with Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, he will veto the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a bill that is paramount to enact pay raises and other military spending. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act absolves tech giants, such as Facebook, Google and Twitter, from legal liability for their users’ content, even if they choose to moderate it. Basically, it clarifies these media companies as platforms, not publishers (who would be legally liable for misleading or harmful content it publishes). Over the past couple of years, and especially in recent months, there has been much apprehension over this law being a free pass for tech companies to censor speech they do not agree with.
The censorship issue and concern over Section 230, as well as the election fraud legal battles being waged by the Trump team, all have one common denominator, which is clearly laid out in details being conveniently left out of mainstream media coverage. So, who is at the center of all of this confusion and apparent deception? Yep, you guessed it: None other than Facebook CEO and Founder Mark Zuckerberg.
Ever since before the election, when the scandal broke out about Hunter Biden, the liberal bias of Big Tech (including Zuckerberg) has become quite obvious. It all started when Facebook and Twitter took down the New York Post’s story about Hunter Biden, the son of former vice president Joe Biden, and their shady business dealings when it broke on October 14. Since the election took place, a survey of 1,750 Biden voters in key battleground states found that close to ten percent of these voters would have changed their vote if they knew about the scandal.
It is highly significant to note that around this same time in October, Facebook changed its terms of service to include “We also can remove or restrict access to your content, services or information if we determine that doing so is reasonably necessary to avoid or mitigate adverse legal or regulatory impacts to Facebook.” This news immediately spurred concerns about election interference from users on social media.
But that is just the beginning. Among the findings from investigations of voter and election irregularities in key battleground states is the money trail from Mark Zuckerberg to election offices all over the country. This money donated by Zuckerberg, totaling $400 million, is now a huge cause for concern. That’s because Zuckerberg and his wife donated the money to an Illinois-based non-profit corporation, the Center for Tech and Civic Life, which is now tied up in post-election lawsuits. Alluding to COVID-19 as the reason, Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, made the contribution to allow the Center for Tech and Civic Life to help over 2,500 election offices across the country pay for poll workers, install ballot drop boxes, and buy ballot equipment.
The lawsuits were filed by the Amistad project of the Thomas More Society, both before and after the election. Before the election, lawsuits were filed in an attempt to block the funds from being used for the election. In an October 5, 2020 press release, Phill Kline, Director of the Amistad Project, stated that accepting money from a private party such as this is a constitutional violation:
“Private interests do not have to operate with the same transparency and political accountability as government and this lack of transparency allows secret and selective deals to emphasize voter turnout that benefits a select party or candidate while making it harder for others to vote. The purchasing of local election offices by billionaires, if allowed, will open an ‘arms race’ between other vested and partisan interests to pour monies into select government coffers to direct government activity. Government must not be involved in favoring any private interest or any partisan objective in the management of elections.”
Following the election, the Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society filed additional lawsuits in six states to object to the election results. These lawsuits also identified specific infringements to state laws that the Center for Tech and Civic Life orchestrated. According to the Epoch Times, the Pennsylvania lawsuit alleges that the placement of ballot boxes purchased by the center were heavily concentrated in left-leaning Delaware County, while the 59 counties that leaned towards Trump had very few ballot boxes. The Georgia lawsuit states that with the help of the Center’s funds, counting centers were strategically moved to urban areas, “to facilitate the movement of hundreds of thousands of questionable ballots in secrecy without legally required bi-partisan observation.”
Section 230 has become a growing concern among government officials, as well as the general public, in recent years. At the National Association of Attorneys General in December 2019, Attorney General William Barr announced that the Justice Department was “studying Section 230 and its scope.” In February of 2020, a workshop was held for academics, non-profit leaders, and industry advocates to discuss the future of the law. Critics of Section 230 expressed concerns that it “has come to symbolize the exceptional treatment from the government that has fueled the growth of a small number of players.”
According to CNBC.com, many lawmakers unhappy with the current law do not want to do away with it entirely, but instead make some adjustments. And here’s something that seems quite convenient given the current circumstances: The New York Times has Former Vice President Joe Biden on record as the strongest critic of Section 230, saying in an interview last year that the law should be completely revoked.
Back in 2017 TechCrunch.com published Mark Zuckerberg’s Humanitarian Manifesto, an article detailing an interview with the Facebook Founder and CEO about his visions for globalization, and intention to employ Facebook as a weapon for social change. In the interview he expressed concerns that “there are movements as a result to push back on furthering global connection.” It is no secret that he sees President Trump as a threat to globalization and his liberal agenda. Of course, back then Zuckerberg painted these visions as completely altruistic, mentioning the desire to introduce users to “a complete range of perspectives” and to unite the right and the left. Instead, our country is more divided than ever. AbleChild strongly supports informed consent. Without an informed public, there is no consent.