Monday, March 11, 2024

Todays Progressive, Socialist, Liberal leftism




The leftist is ant individualistic, and pro-collectivist. He/she wants society to solve everyone’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, and take care of them. They are not the sort of persons who have an inner sense of confidence in their ability to solve one’s own problems and satisfy one’s own needs. The liberal leftists are antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, they feel like losers.

What one is trying to get at in discussing liberalism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Yet today the movement is fragmented, and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When speaking of liberal leftists, one has in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists, climate activists, globalists, and the like.

Yet not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. Thus, what one means by “liberalism” is perhaps to indicate roughly and approximately the two psychological tendencies that are the main driving force of modern liberal leftism.

By no means can one group or movement claim to be telling the whole truth about leftist psychology. Also, this is meant to apply to modern liberal leftism only. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern liberal leftism are called “feelings of inferiority” and “over-socialization”.

Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern liberal leftism, while over-socialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern liberal leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

By “feelings of inferiority” in the whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him/her (or about groups with whom she/he identifies) one can conclude that he/she has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem.

This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms “black”, “oriental”, “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy”, “dude” or “fellow”. The negative connotations have been Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology is not the average person of colour, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privileged strata of society.

Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families.

Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior.

The leftist liberals themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems.

Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly, they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

Liberal Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good, and successful. They hate Canada; and America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality and the view of others.

The reasons that liberal progressive leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They say and claim they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in third-world cultures, the liberal leftist finds excuses for them, or at best they GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas they ENTHUSIASTICALLY point out (and more often than not greatly exaggerate) these faults where they appear in Western civilization.

These faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. They hate, Canada, America, and the West because they are strong and successful.  Words like “self-confidence”, “self-reliance”, “initiative”, “enterprise”, “optimism”, etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary.

Have you noticed that art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat, and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment?

Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, and objective reality and insist that everything is culturally relative. One can indeed ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge.

They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior).

The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he/she cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests.

Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behaviour because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it.

Thus, if a person is “inferior” it is not his/her fault, but society's, because he/she has not been brought up properly. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him/her a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, or a ruthless competitor.

This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself/herself but rather a deficit in his/her sense of power and self-worth, but they can still conceive of themselves as having the capacity to be strong, and his/her efforts to make himself/herself strong produce their unpleasant behaviour. 

But the leftist is too far gone for that. Their feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that they cannot conceive of themselves as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. They can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which they identify.

Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police and others to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they prefer masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait. 

Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principles do play a role for the leftists of the over-socialized type. But compassion and moral principles cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behaviour; so is the drive for power.

Moreover, much leftist behaviour is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously, it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them.

However leftist activists such as Black Lives Matter do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power.

In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.  If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to invent problems to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.

Let me stipulate and emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.

Saturday, March 9, 2024

January 6 Committee Suppressed Exonerating Evidence Of Trump’s Push For National Guard




Liz Cheney and her committee falsely claimed they had ‘no evidence’ to support Trump officials’ claims the White House had asked for 10,000 National Guard troops.

Former Rep. Liz Cheney’s January 6 Committee suppressed evidence that President Donald Trump pushed for 10,000 National Guard troops to protect the nation’s capital, a previously hidden transcript obtained by The Federalist shows.

Cheney and her committee falsely claimed they had “no evidence” to support Trump officials’ claims the White House had communicated its desire for 10,000 National Guard troops. In fact, an early transcribed interview conducted by the committee included precisely that evidence from a key source. The interview, which Cheney attended and personally participated in, was suppressed from public release until now.

Not only did the committee not accurately characterize the interview, they suppressed the transcript from public review. On top of that, committee allies began publishing critical stories and even conspiracy theories about Ornato ahead of follow-up interviews with him. Ornato was a career Secret Service official who had been detailed to the security position in the White House.

Top Takeaways:

A January 6 committee staffer asked Ornato, “When it comes to the National Guard statement about having 10,000 troops or any other number of troops, do you recall any discussion before the 6th about whether and how many National Guard troops to deploy on January 6th?” Ornato surprised the committee by noting he did recall a conversation between Meadows and Bowser: “He was on the phone with her and wanted to make sure she had everything that she needed,” Ornato told investigators.

Meadows “wanted to know if she need any more guardsmen,” Ornato testified. “And I remember the number 10,000 coming up of, you know, ‘The president wants to make sure that you have enough.’ You know, ‘He is willing to ask for 10,000.’ I remember that number. Now that you said it, it reminded me of it. And that she was all set. She had, I think it was like 350 or so for intersection control, and those types of things not in the law enforcement capacity at the time.”  Ornato was correct. Bowser declined the offer, asking only for a few hundred National Guard and requiring them to serve in a very limited capacity.

Bowser’s decision to decline help from the White House did not end the Trump team’s efforts to secure troops ahead of the protest. When the D.C. mayor declined Trump’s offer of 10,000 troops, Ornato said the White House requested a “quick reaction force” out of the Defense Department in case it was needed.

Once the Capitol was breached, the Trump White House pushed for immediate help from Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller and grew frustrated at the slow deployment of that help, according to the testimony. “So then I remember the chief saying, ‘Hey, I’m calling secretary of defense to get that [quick reaction force] in here,” Ornato said. Later he said, “And then I remember the chief telling Miller, ‘Get them in here, get them in here to secure the Capitol now.'”

Cheney and her committee falsely claimed they had “no evidence” to support Trump officials’ claims the White House had communicated its desire for 10,000 National Guard troops. In fact, an early transcribed interview conducted by the committee included precisely that evidence from a key source. The interview, which Cheney attended and personally participated in, was suppressed from public release until now.

Read the full article below:

https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/08/exclusive-liz-cheney-january-6-committee-suppressed-exonerating-evidence-of-trumps-push-for-national-guard/

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9554985/Liz-Cheney-secretly-orchestrated-Washington-Post-op-ed-ten-living-former-Defense-Secretaries.html

 

https://cha.house.gov/_cache/files/3/b/3b713ae6-5426-4d5c-9853-b19fcb7d75a5/7AA2E4D00C62DE8F036EE90481BC8EE2.ornato-ti.pdf

Saturday, February 24, 2024

Keeping Democracy Alive 2024


Most left-leaning academia like Hedges are left-wing ideologists and hold the belief, that democracy of the free-market system and capitalism is dysfunctional and has no proper competition with reasonable rules, but what are his alternative suggestions for proper completion and reasonable rules that are required under his ideals and theories of spiritual enlightenment for a socialist utopian collective community based on wealth distribution?


On a pragmatic and philosophical ground, the important point is that the pursuit of happiness is on an individual basis, not a collective right, as my dreams are different from yours and someone else’s is completely different from both of ours.


For example, the political holy grail of progressive socialized liberalism and some feminists is that the government should control, and taxpayers should fund childcare, daycare and cradle-to-grave benefits. Others hold the opinion that it is not the children who require liberating from the family but perhaps the mother should be liberated from the child. It is not only the fathers who are supposed to guide their youth but the mothers, fathers and grandparents of their offspring who are directly responsible for the youth of today and their upbringing, not governments or political parties.


The responsibility for sheltering, raising, feeding, and clothing is the direct responsibility of those who decide to conceive or adopt a child. 

Government-run hand-out programs and mass social herding formulas for housing, rent, childcare and unsustainable subsidies or socialism/communism is not the answer as history has shown.

It is however a worldwide failure and has done nothing other than create ghettos of segregated warehouses of poor people living in misery.


For myself, I believe, any fair-minded individual would not dispute the political reality that today the core agenda of progressive domestic social liberalism relates to the support for a welfare state, abortion and the racial identity politics of multiculturalism-based redistribution of wealth through class warfare and the concept of open borders.


An unmanageable national debt aggravated by spending and borrowing for unsustainable entitlements and handouts has both caused and exacerbated the burden of an inequitable system of taxation whereby 10% of the US population pays 80% of all taxes and 43% of Americans account for 20% of paid federal taxes while 47% of the US population pay NO federal taxes?


Thus, the so-called wealthy in the US already pay the brunt of taxes while 47% pay no taxes. In Canada, 33.4% of citizens pay less than $2 in federal taxes. Therefore 66.6% of Canadians are subsidizing 33.4% of the population. A fair share, in Canada and the US, should mean that all citizens pay an equal amount of taxes as opposed to paying NO federal taxes at all.


Any mischief, based on an excessive desire to acquire and possess more than what one needs or even deserves especially for material wealth, did not originate from nor is it limited to that of the Wall Street or Bay Streets of the world. It all began with the greed of Union leaders as well as their members be it auto workers, teachers, hospital workers, government employees, political appointees’ etc. along with politicians; corporations and the shareholders of publicity traded companies. Such firms and organizations also represent companies in the resource development sector for green energy solutions and other special interest groups publicly traded around the globe.


Because of our now excessive and numerous government regulations and attempts to micromanage the free enterprise system through government controls and outright nationalizations of industries or corporations combined with excess wage, benefit and pension demands by all guilty parties’ businesses go to China, India, South America, and other countries around the world to find a less expensive workforce and less government.


Unfortunately, the leaders today, be they politicians or union leaders, seem far more concerned with raising political donations or union dues through new members for their re-elections and play fast and furious with our money for their success and prosperity at the expense of those who actual pay taxes or union dues.


It is not only individuals like Hughes who feel they are entitled to receive handouts from others or the wealthy.


It’s politicians, academia, artists, academics, students, bureaucrats, corporations, unions, special interest groups, it`s your neighbours and those that pay little or no federal income taxes all of whom fanatically believe they are entitled to their entitlements at other people’s expense.


This is not freedom or democracy but a resurgence of progressive totalitarian socialized liberalism. If anything, occupying pressure groups protesting the Wall Streets or Bay Streets of the world or individual achievements and wealth without any pronounced alternatives suggest anarchy. Perhaps as most academics preach, they wish for a return to Fascism, Maoism, Maoism, Communism or 21st-century totalitarian socialism.


History has documented for us all that unexpected power by revolutions throughout the world are prone to arrogance, disrespect, intrusive, and short-lived freedoms for the people at the expense of law and order, liberties and freedoms. For example, the French Revolution, given the benefit of history, "it's difficult to understand why anyone doubts the fascist nature of that revolution. It was totalitarian, terrorist, nationalist, conspiratorial and populist.


And it produced the first modern dictators, Robespierre, and Napoleon. The paranoid Jacobin mentality made the revolutionaries more savage and crueller than the king they replaced. Over fifty thousand people died in the terror of that revolution."


The Russian Revolution and its later day revolutionary leaders were responsible for the deaths of more than 40 MILLION people in the name of that revolution.


The Chinese Revolution under Mao saw over 65 MILLION people killed in the name of that revolution. The Cuban revolution saw close to 50 thousand kicked, tortured, and terrorized and thousands of political prisoners remain in jail for daring to speak up against Castro and his brother.


Unfortunately, today’s elected career politicians and bureaucrats within this new world consist mostly of blame passers who never take responsibility or come to grips with their refusal to stand up and be held accountable.

Money left in the hands of taxpayers is far more productive than putting it in the hands of career politicians, special interest groups and unelected bureaucrats.


Democracy yes, yet anarchy, class warfare and revolutions have been shown to destroy freedom; liberties and countries not build them.

Friday, February 23, 2024

Quebec's Language Bill 96 and Others All Unconstitutional




When if ever shall the electorate have a political party and its leaders with enough sense and fortitude to stand up for Canada and its citizens by using the disallowance power under the existing Canadian Constitution i.e. Constitution Act, 1867 – the disallowance power which remains part and parcel of the Consolidation of Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982? It remains part of the Canadian constitution as protection for minority rights and from discriminatory laws passed by provincial governments i.e., Quebec’s Bill 96 and others.

Quebec's language Bill 96 is deemed unconstitutional, and the Prime Minister must invoke the disallowance power, an integral aspect of the Consolidation of Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that what is written in the Constitution remains in force, NO matter if such powers written within the Constitution are often used or not. They remain part of the Constitution until the Constitution is amended by the Canadian Constitution amendment procedures and NOT by the Supreme Court of Canada.

When will we see a political party and its leaders with the wisdom and courage to defend Canada and its citizens by utilizing the disallowance power entrenched in the existing Canadian Constitution? This power, enshrined in the Constitution Act, of 1867, remains vital for safeguarding minority rights and preventing the enactment of discriminatory laws by provincial governments, such as Quebec’s Bill 96.

It is a fundamental principle that provisions within the Constitution retain their legal force regardless of whether they are frequently exercised. They persist until modified through the prescribed Canadian Constitution amendment procedures, not through decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.

While scholars may engage in academic discourse about the legitimacy of constitutional powers that lie dormant, it is essential to recognize that such discussions do not alter the constitutional framework itself. The disallowance power, explicitly outlined in the Constitution Act of 1867, remains valid unless formally renounced through established conventions.

As no Prime Minister has officially declared the disallowance power obsolete, it retains its legal validity as a crucial component of Canada's constitutional framework. Therefore, it can and should be employed to ensure all provinces adhere to the principles outlined in the Canadian Consolidation of Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982.

Moreover, debates among academics concerning whether a constitutional convention can nullify a written law present complex legal questions. It is challenging to argue that a lack of exercise could invalidate a constitutionally established power, particularly given legal precedents such as the 1990 court ruling that upheld the appointment of eight additional senators, despite the previously unused section of the Constitution Act of 1867 being invoked.

Background:

1.        https://lop.parl.ca/content/lop/TeachersInstitute/ConstitutionalConventions.pdf

2.      https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/ccs-term/reservation-and-disallowance/?print=print-search

3.      https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-bill-96https://nationalpost.com/opinion/quebecs-latest-assault-on-the-english-language-must-not-stand

 


 

Thursday, February 22, 2024

New York Executive Law § 63(12) Felonious?

 

In challenging the constitutionality of New York Executive Law § 63(12), several aspects of substantive due process should be implicated.

Privacy Rights: If the law infringes upon individuals' fundamental right to privacy without a compelling government interest and lacks narrow tailoring, it conceivably raises substantive due process concerns.

For instance, if it enables the Attorney General to target individuals or businesses without adequate justification, privacy rights are at risk.

Property Rights: Substantive due process safeguards property rights by demanding that government actions affecting property be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. If the law permits the Attorney General to pursue injunctions or remedies against individuals or businesses without due justification, it might infringe upon property rights and thus be subject to challenge.

Liberty Interests: Substantive due process protects against arbitrary or unreasonable government interference with individual liberty interests. If the law excessively restricts individuals' lawful business activities or encroaches upon their liberty without sufficient justification, it conceivably faces challenges on substantive due process grounds.

Overbreadth and Vagueness: Substantive due process mandates that laws be clear and narrowly tailored to their intended purposes. Should New York Executive Law § 63(12) contain overly vague or broad language, or if it criminalizes constitutionally protected conduct to a significant degree, substantive due process concerns conceivably arise. If the language of the law is overly vague or broad, it could lead to arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement and thus violate the principles of due process. Additionally, if the law sweeps too broadly and criminalizes a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct, it might be considered overbroad.

Additionally, concerning excessive fines, laws or actions imposing penalties disproportionate to the offence committed can be deemed unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines. 

Cases such as United States v. Bajakajian (1998), Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc. (1989), Austin v. United States (1993), and Timbs v. Indiana (2019) illustrate how the Supreme Court has addressed such issues, underscoring the principle that fines must not be grossly disproportionate to the offence and that property cannot be confiscated without due process of law.

In addition, the New York Executive Law § 63(12) could be considered unconstitutional depending on various factors, including how it is applied and interpreted in practice, and whether it conflicts with constitutional provisions or principles. Here are some potential areas where constitutional concerns might arise:

Due Process: The law allows the Attorney General to seek injunctions and other remedies against individuals or businesses engaging in fraudulent or illegal acts. In applying such remedies, it's essential to ensure that affected parties receive due process rights, including notice and an opportunity to be heard.

First Amendment: If the law restricts speech or expression in a manner that is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, it could raise First Amendment concerns. For example, if the law is used to target protected speech or political expression, it might be subject to challenge on First Amendment grounds.

Equal Protection: The law must be applied in a manner that does not discriminate against individuals or groups based on improper classifications such as race, gender, or religion. Unequal treatment in enforcing the law could potentially violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Separation of Powers: Depending on how the law interacts with the powers of other branches of government, particularly the judiciary, concerns about separation of powers might arise. If the law grants the Attorney General excessive discretion or authority without sufficient oversight, it could raise separation of powers issues.

State Constitutional Concerns: It's also possible that the law could be challenged under the New York State Constitution, which may provide additional protections or impose different requirements compared to the U.S. Constitution.

The "general principle of proportionality" is a legal doctrine often applied in various contexts, including constitutional law and international law. It essentially states that any government action or restriction on individual rights must be proportionate to the legitimate aim it seeks to achieve. 

In other words, the means used by the government should not exceed what is necessary to accomplish its objectives and was this case brought against the former US President by a political hatchet job by one political party member seeking a higher public office?


Wednesday, February 21, 2024

USA No Beacon For Democracy

 

USA No Beacon For Democracy



Today in the USA, the legal entanglements of Donald Trump by his political enemies embedded in the deep state of government’s nonelected bureaucrats and the opposition democratic party during and after his presidency offer a contemporary example of the complexities of political prosecutions within a so-called democratic framework. Facing a barrage of legal actions ranging from alleged financial misconduct, with no injured parties, to alleged interference in democratic processes, Trump's legal battles have laid bare the fault lines of partisan politics in America.

Further, today in the USA, the legal entanglements of Donald Trump by his political enemies embedded in the deep state of government’s nonelected bureaucrats and the democratic party during and after his presidency offer a contemporary example of the complexities of political prosecutions within a so-called democratic framework. Facing a barrage of legal actions ranging from alleged financial misconduct, with no injured parties, to alleged interference in democratic processes, Trump's legal battles have laid bare the fault lines of partisan politics in America.

None of these very questionable weaponized legal proceedings can be conceived as essential checks on executive power, they are all politically motivated attempts to undermine a duly elected leader or a candidate for election against the ruling political party. The debate surrounding Trump's legal woes underscores the inherent tension between accountability, partisanship and weaponization of institutions in much-heralded democratic governance by those in power.

The weaponization of democratic values against dissenters represents a betrayal of the very principles upon which democracy is built. Freedom of speech, equality before the law, and protection of minority rights are not mere slogans but the bedrock of democratic governance. When these principles are subverted to serve partisan agendas or suppress opposition voices, the health and vitality of democracy are called into question.

At the heart of these disparate narratives lies a fundamental question: What does it mean to uphold democratic principles in an imperfect world?

The answer, perhaps, lies in a nuanced understanding of the delicate balance between justice and politics before this weaponization of government institutions and supported by the media and social media corporations who do not have a legal right, in my view, or constitutional right to curtail free speech. All these social media platform communities stipulated that they wanted your voices to be heard and that is how they got you all to sign up to their various forms and platforms of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Amazon, Google etc.

Yet, when all these tech companies/private corporations and media believe that their rights, along with governments, to control the users (inhabitants) of these various public internet communities, (domains) platforms, and forums, then they are in fact coextensive with the right of that (user)/ inhabitant/homeowner to regulate or censor its guests (users/members) is legally NOT an acceptable contention under existing laws and constitution.

When the institutions of justice, from law enforcement to the judiciary, or media and social media private Teck companies become weapons in the hands of political actors and a political party fully supported and non-questioned by a so-called free press, democracy itself hangs in the balance.

In confronting the challenges of political prosecutions and maintaining democratic health, vigilance is paramount. Civil society must remain steadfast in its commitment to defending democratic norms and holding those in power accountable. A free and independent media, robust checks and balances, and an engaged citizenry are indispensable bulwarks against the erosion of democratic values. Ownership, by any private corporation, does not always mean it is their absolute dominion. The more these private Tech companies (owners), for their own advantage to make money off those using their domains for the advantage of a specific political party, or ideology, they have opened up their  (domains), platforms, forums, and media communities (property) for use by the public in general and worldwide, and thus, legally then, their so-called private corporation rights become circumscribed by the statutory, legal, and constitutional rights of those who use it.

As such, these private tech companies, or the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes railroads or airplanes may NOT operate them as freely as a farmer does with his farm. These facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public by wanting the public's voices to be heard and to engage other members of the public in sharing feedback and open dialogues. Since all these private tech company operations are essentially a public function, they all are subject to State, Federal and Constitutional regulations, and laws already on the books.

Based on the text of the New York Executive Law 63(12), it appears to grant the attorney general of New York broad authority to seek injunctions against individuals or businesses engaged in repeated fraudulent or illegal activities. However, the language used in the law raises potential concerns regarding due process rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution: State laws must be compatible with and incorporate the individual guarantees provided by the U.S. Constitution. This principle is known as the doctrine of "constitutional supremacy." According to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2), federal law, including the Constitution itself and treaties made under its authority, is the supreme law of the land. This means that state laws and state constitutions must conform to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

As we navigate the murky waters of politics and justice, let us remember that democracy is not a destination but a journey—a journey fraught with challenges and pitfalls, but one worth embarking on, nonetheless. In the face of adversity, let us stand united in defence of democracy, for it is only through collective action and unwavering commitment that we can safeguard the principles that define us as free and equal citizens.

FACTS:

Based on the text of the executive law, it appears to grant the attorney general of New York broad authority to seek injunctions against individuals or businesses engaged in repeated fraudulent or illegal activities. However, the language used in the law raises potential concerns regarding due process rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution:

The provision grants the attorney general of the state of New York the authority to seek injunctions against individuals or entities engaged, without ever having prior convictions or charges, for repeated unfound fraudulent or illegal acts or demonstrating persistent unfounded fraud or illegality in business transactions conceivably are unconstitutional at least.

Restitution and Damages: The law allows the court to order restitution and damages, which are common remedies in civil cases involving ACTUAL fraud and VICTIMS or illegal conduct and VICTIMS. However, the imposition of such penalties based on a political prosecutor who ran for office on “Charging Trump” without a prior criminal conviction raises concerns about double jeopardy or the imposition of punishment without a proper finding of guilt. While civil remedies like restitution and damages serve different purposes than criminal penalties and can be justified based on the need to compensate victims in this case NO victims are sighted or came forward other than the prosecutor who sought office on the unethical basis of going after a specific person nothing else.

Requirement of Prior Conviction: The law does not explicitly require a prior conviction for the attorney general to act and this absurdity must be challenged in law.  Instead, it allows for action based on repeated yet unfounded fraudulent or illegal acts or persistent fraud or illegality in business transactions. While due process typically requires a criminal conviction before imposing certain penalties or restrictions, civil actions like injunctions have different standards of proof. Injunctions are preventive measures aimed at stopping ongoing harm, and they can be sought without a prior criminal conviction based on purely political status or political association.

Scope of "Fraud" and "Illegality": The law defines "fraud" and "illegality" broadly to include various deceptive practices and unlawful conduct in business transactions. Such broad definitions could potentially raise concerns about vagueness and overbreadth, which are constitutional issues. Laws that are too vague or overly broad conceivably violate due process rights by failing to provide adequate notice of prohibited conduct or by potentially infringing on constitutionally protected activities.

Judicial Oversight: The law requires the attorney general to apply to the Supreme Court of New York for an injunction. This judicial oversight helps ensure that any action taken under the law is subject to review by an independent judiciary, which is a fundamental aspect of due process. Yet all judicial appointments are politicly made.

The Politicization of law enforcement: When law enforcement agencies are used to target individuals or groups based on their political beliefs rather than their actions, it undermines the rule of law and undermines public trust in the justice system.

Manipulation of the media and social media Teck companies: When media outlets are controlled or influenced by a particular party or ideology, they propagate biased or misleading information, stifling dissenting voices and shaping public opinion in favour of those in power.

The Undermining of democratic norms: When democratic norms and institutions are disregarded or undermined in pursuit of political gain, it weakens the foundations of democracy and can pave the way for authoritarian rule.

In Conclusion:  While the law grants significant authority to the attorney general to combat fraud and illegal conduct in business transactions, its constitutionality would ultimately depend on how it is applied in practice and whether it adheres to fundamental principles of due process, including notice, judicial oversight, and protection against overly vague or broad restrictions. Any challenges to the law would likely involve careful consideration of all ethical and constitutional principles by the courts.