Possibly the biggest reason that liberals hated Donald Trump as President (besides the fact that he called them out on their bull… stuff) is that having Trump in office gave Republicans the opportunity to put judges on the bench who would vote in a Constitutional manner which favored individual freedoms over socialistic corruption.

Granted, not all Republican appointees have turned out to be strong conservatives (looking at you, John Roberts), but there is certainly a better chance to have someone who actually takes their oath to uphold the Constitution seriously if they are appointed by a Republican. We know that anyone appointed by a Democrat is nearly always going to rule in favor of Democrats and socialism over the Constitution.

Which we saw happen again this week. Jack Phillips writes,

A federal court has dismissed two antitrust cases that were brought against Facebook, representing a significant setback for federal and state regulators in their attempts to rein in Big Tech.

The lawsuits were filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general seeking to break up what they’ve described as Facebook’s monopoly on social networking.

Facebook shares rose more than 4 percent on June 28.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington, an Obama appointee, said that FTC lawyers didn’t provide enough evidence or explanation on how they determined that Facebook controls more than 60 percent of the social media networking market. The agency further alleged that Facebook violated antitrust laws by purchasing a would-be competitor.

You have to wonder in what world that Boasberg lives in if he actually believes that Facebook has sixty percent or less share of social media traffic in the U.S. (or, likely, the world). No one else is even close, and Facebook’s purchase of Instagram helped to strengthen their control of social media.

But, like all Democrats, facts don’t matter. Just what he feels is right, and that’s a problem if there is ever going to be real justice and reform around big tech’s stranglehold on information in the U.S.




Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here