The Democrats have lost the battle. Trump is President. But no they want to make an end around that decision and come in the back door. All kinds of ideas are out there on ways to deny the will of the people and insert Hillary into the White House.
One is to convince enough Electors to “vote their conscience,” which in Liberalspeak means never mind what you are instructed to do, violate your contract and vote for Hillary. And for future elections, the Left is working hard for the direct popular vote for President and scrapping the Electoral College.
Another idea is explained by James G Wiles at American Thinker:
But there’s another idea out there, being talked about in otherwise-respectable circles.
Limit who can vote.
Don’t laugh. As the 2016 Election Cycle played out and the Trump phenomenon escalated, commentators on the left began espousing the idea of limiting the franchise. You know, to people who are smart, like them.
Once again, don’t laugh. This is not a wholly fanciful notion.
The Constitution, in general, leaves the question of voter qualifications to the states. The exceptions are the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments, which permitted freed male slaves to vote and granted voting rights to women, respectively. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 does not prohibit narrowing who may vote, so long as the change does not implicate a “suspect category.”
So much for the Liberal catechism of “One Man, One Vote.”
Then there is the idea of a recount in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan being promulgated and financed by Jill Stein, no less. The Liberal/Democrat media published bogus polls that showed during the election process that Hillary was way ahead – WEHN SHE WASN’T. Now that Trump won in many states that they had declared Hillary was a shoo-in even though she wasn’t, they are demanding a recount because while the polls showed one thing the actual result was another. That must be voter fraud, say the Liberal Democrats and Media. VOTER FRAUD! Conservatives have been providing evidence of voter fraud made by Liberal/Left Democrats for years. And what do the Democrats say? Oh, there is no voter fraud, it’s all a figment of your imagination. You want to stop voter fraud, how about voter photo ID Laws?
How about the three plus million illegal aliens who voted for Hillary???
If that is not enough the Liberal Left wants to control the Internet and boycott and/or eliminate all those who are dispensing “fake news.” Fake news is defined as those Internet websites that dare to publish opinions on their own that the Left considers wrong or untrue. If the Alternative Media does not adhere to the same standards and report the “facts” as has been interpreted by the Traditional Media, then they need to be controlled, boycotted and punished.
This has come about not only because of the rise of the Alternative Internet Media, but also because Trump has 15 million (some say 25) Twitter followers and rather than report his message through the traditional media, he bypasses them and goes directly to the people via Twitter and Facebook.
The War on ‘Fake News’
In response to the recent election fiasco, progressives are increasing their efforts to control the internet. They are targeting “fake news.” Since no one is in favor of “fake news”, this should be a clear winning strategy. Progressives can portray themselves as the defenders of democracy and free speech. At the same time they will be able to eliminate some troublesome competitors who might question their own reliability.
The forces arrayed against the powers of falsehood are formidable. They include heads of state, internet providers, major news organizations, and a myriad of private groups. President Obama proclaimed, “There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world.” This is a curious statement since truthiness is defined as ”the quality of seeming to be true according to one’s intuition, opinion, or perception without regard to logic, factual evidence, or the like.” Angela Merkel told the German Bundestag, “Opinions aren’t formed the way they were 25 years ago. We must confront this phenomenon and if necessary, regulate it.”
Internet providers have joined the effort. Facebook says it will no longer place Facebook-powered ads on “fake news” websites. Google said it would stop letting fake news sites use its ad placement network. Google has created an entity composed of mainstream news outlets. It is called the First Draft Coalition and presents itself as a kind of Ministry of Truth. It will decide which stories are true and which are “fake.” The New York Times is in the vanguard of this movement. It has criticized Facebook and Google for making it possible for fake news to be shared by millions. The Times pointed to the negative outcome of fake news pointing to the ethnic violence in Burma that a “fake news” report contributed to.
The criticism of “fake news” on the internet makes no mention of “fake news” in the mainstream media. The extensive bias in the media is one of the reasons for the attack on the internet. It would require several volumes to list all the examples of “fake news” disseminated by the main stream media. A recent example is the New York Times’ criticism of Senator Ben Sasse. The Timesreported that Sasse, “tweeted about people who have been paid to riot against Mr. Trump — an idea propagated by fake news stories.” In the Washington Post, Paul Horner remarked that Trump’s, “supporters were under the belief that people were getting paid to protest at their rallies, and that’s just insane.” Perhaps the Washington Post and New York Times were unaware that two top Democratic strategists were on video discussing voter fraud and planting paid agitators at campaign events for Donald Trump.
There are countless examples of “fake news” reports. Some of them were relatively harmless like the stories of Janet Cooke and Jayson Blair. Other examples were more significant. Dan Rather’s 2004 report on George Bush’s military service was designed to effect a presidential election. Michael Isikoff’s 2005 article in Newsweek about the U.S. military putting a Koran in the toilet possibly led to 17 deaths during riots in Afghanistan. The Times incorrectly reported, “tracing the firing location of a Syrian sarin-laden rocket in 2013 back to a Syrian military base.” In 2003 CNN head Eason Jordan admitted in a New York Times op-ed piece titled “The News We Kept to Ourselves” that he deliberately whitewashed Saddam Hussein’s atrocities.
Some of these “fake news” stories have had a significant impact on world history. In 1933, Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times correspondent Walter Durante’s downplaying of the Ukrainian famine facilitated President Roosevelt’s recognition of the Soviet Union. More famous is William Randolph Hearst’s comment to artist Frederic Remington who he had sent to Cuba, “You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war,” shortly before the Spanish American War.
Who has monitored the dissemination of information in the past? In a free society, it should be regulated by the market. When people feel they are not being served they seek alternate sources. A large number of consumers believe that the major media are not serving them adequately. They are seeking information elsewhere. Progressives would like to prevent this. If they want to be successful they should do this patiently without fanfare. Instead they are using people like ex-Stasi agent Anetta Kahane.