Harris’ Post-Election Message; and Bhattacharya in the Trump Administration

KAMALA HARRIS’ POST-ELECTION VIDEO SPARKS DEBATE
Since the results of the November 5th election were announced and Harris delivered her concession speech, she was virtually missing from all political discourse – including reflections on why she lost the elections. But, recently, the Democrat’s posted an incredibly short 26 second video of Harris’s 10 minute speech on social media, allegedly meant to encourage and thank her supporters.
HARRIS’ POST-ELECTION VIDEO IS INTENTIONALLY (AND DANGEROUSLY) VAGUE
This video excerpt sparked a significant amount of online commentary and debate. On the one hand many people were saying it was unnecessary, vague and only revealed that Harris did not look like she was taking the election defeat well. On the other hand, others pointed out that the message in the video excerpt itself was uncalled for because the prevailing narrative regarding president Trump and his preparations for office were receiving a great deal of support. Which is true.
However, I’d like to zoom in on the message in this except. Harris speaks of supporters not allowing anyone to take their power from them. In addition, she states that supporters have the same power and ability as they did before the November 5th election. This communication from Harris is both intentionally and dangerously vague. The first reason for this is that the underlying premise is that Trump’s victory and presidency poses a threat to Americans (in particular the ultra-liberal minority that voted for Harris). This is not true; we have discussed on multiple occasions why the claims of women losing their bodily autonomy and rights is false because, for example, the same laws on abortion that were in place during Biden-Harris administration, that were implemented by Trump in his last administration, are still in place – there is no federal ban on abortion or the ability for women to access medical care. Similarly, Trump is not arresting transgender people or separating parents from children – he is stopping the social contagion of woke gender ideology by removing it from schools, for example.
The second reason why this communication is intentionally vague and dangerous must be understood against the backdrop of there having been virtually no massive post-election riots against Trump’s victory (which is fairly expected because he won BOTH the popular and electoral college vote) – and this was despite left-wing media claiming there was a big likelihood of these riots taking place. INSTEAD, there were two in Philadelphia and Chicago. But, even when looking at the substantive details of these riots, you quickly realise that they did not take place because of legitimate grievances to Trump’s victory.
In particular, in Chicago, the agitation against president Trump’s victory was carried out by the United States Palestinian Community Network. In fact, the organisers of the protest in Chicago said that the Biden-Harris administration was warned of the riot. Secondly, the riot in Philadelphia took place because it is a predominantly Democrat voting area, and was not happy that their person is not in office. According to figures published by the Philadelphia city government, over 500 000 Philadelphians, or 78.29 percent of the voters cast their ballot for Harris. Therefore, there are no riots showing a significant injection to Trump’s presidency. HOWEVER, Democrats are not really happy with this majority consensus of the Trump win; andHarris’ remarks are therefore intended to provoke a reaction, possibly in the form of mass protests like we saw after the 2016 election.
However, they have imagined a vain thing. In fact, what has happened are two things: first, people are also highlighting the shortcomings of the Harris campaign; stating that it is an indictment of her claimed financial plans for the American economy that her campaign raised nearly $1.5 billion and ended up with $20 million in debt. Meanwhile, senior advisers to Vice President Kamala Harris’ failed presidential campaign, including David Plouffe finally admit that the “campaign’s internal polling never had Harris ahead of Trump.” Secondly, people are also refuting the necessity of this address, while pointing out the overwhelming support for Trump’s second administration.
TRUMP NOMINATES NIH CRITIC, DR JAY BHATTACHARYA, FOR DIRECTOR ROLE
But, speaking of enthusiasm for president Trump’s new administration, just when we thought we had seen the best of it, president Trump has nominated NIH critic Dr Jay Bhattacharya for the role of Director of the NIH! Now, Dr Jay Bhattacharya, is a Stanford physician and economist known for critiquing COVID-19 lockdowns. Dr Bhattacharya’s nomination also reflects a potential shift in policy towards what his supporters describe as restoring trust in scientific institutions through foundational science – much like we saw with RFK Jr’s nomination to be the director of HHS, and this marking a shift from traditional, reactionary Republican health policies.
Dr Bhattacharya has been at the forefront of the war against censorship, especially as it related to the NIH and its cohort or misinformation. In light, Dr Jay Bhattacharya even became a target of the censorship industrial complex. For instance, in the US, during the covid pandemic and before the release of twitter and facebook files, it came out that there was a twitter blacklist used to even suppress distinguished scientists and medical practitioners. Individuals like Dr J. Bhattacharya, were on it, because it was specific people who promulgated an anti-censorship and covid propaganda messages that were put on this black list.
DR BHATTACHARYA AND THE MURTHY V MISSOURI CASE
In addition, Dr Bhattacharya has been instrumental in the Murthy v Missouri case opposing the censorship industrial complex in operation in the US. For some context, The Supreme Court of the US issued a very disappointing ruling on the 6th of July in the Murthy v. Missouri case. It was not a final ruling, but only a ruling on the preliminary injunction; thus meaning that the case will continue. The key takeaway from the Court was the finding stating that: Neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant.
Essentially, the Supreme Court delayed in answering here, refusing to opine on the merits of the case. The standing finding rests on technicalities. BUT, to clarify, this ruling that we lack standing on the preliminary injunction does not mean a lack of standing to bring the case to trial. The case will move to the trial phase at the District Court now, where the involved parties will seek additional discovery and continue to expose the US government’s elaborate censorship machinery. And the hope is that they can uncover sufficient evidence for the Supreme Court not to continue to look the other way when it comes to a final ruling. But let’s begin with some historical context, and this time around articulated by one of the plaintiffs to the case, Mr Jay Bhattacharya.
The judicial reasoning in the July 6th reasoning pointed to an incorrect assumption on the part of the SCOTUS. Specifically, the court stated that the plaintiffs suggest that the platforms continue to suppress their speech according to policies initially adopted under Government pressure. But the plaintiffs have a redressability problem. Without evidence of continued pressure from the defendants, the platforms remain free to enforce, or not to enforce, their policies—even those tainted by initial governmental coercion. And the available evidence indicates that the platforms have continued to enforce their policies against COVID–19 misinformation even as the Federal Government has wound down its own pandemic response measures. Enjoining the Government defendants, therefore, is unlikely to affect the platforms’ content-moderation decisions.
But, what the court was essentially saying here is that even if the government coerced platforms to censor you in the past, and platforms continue to censor you according to these same policies—and without any evidence that the government is not coercing platforms anymore—plaintiffs cannot prove that they will likely be harmed in the future, which is one of the necessary criteria for a preliminary injunction. And so, since the federal government got away with it in the past, the SCOTUS trusts they won’t do it again in the future. Or if they do, the plaintiffs and American society won’t be able to prove they were targeting anyone by name.
However, this reasoning brings us back to what I’ve often said about the justices presiding over this case: It is not explicitly clear that they know a great deal about the existence of this censorship industrial complex. And it would not be difficult to see why: most people had no idea that this censorship industrial complex was being constructed and deployed. After all, when censorship is effective, most people are put in a position of not knowing what they do not know; because the whole point is to deny the public information. BUT, the reason why it is of concern that the Supreme Court justices are not aware of the censorship industrial complex OR might even perhaps their not be as adamant at uprooting it, as they ought to be: the Supreme Court, upon hearing the case, appeared wary of limiting the Biden administration’s contacts with social media platforms, despite the fact that this case tests how much the government can pressure social media companies to remove content before crossing a constitutional line from persuasion into coercion. And this is something that Dr Jay Bhattacharya also spoke against.
DR BHATTACHARYA AND THE CRITIQUE ON COVID LOCKDOWNS
Finally, Dr Jay Bhattacharya also spoke out against the covid-era lock-ups. He often gave the critique that lockdowns were an enormous and catastrophic mistake.. We should recoil with horror.. Covid policies violated medical ethics & crushed ability for physicians/scientists to discuss facts/evidence.
Written by Lindokuhle Mabaso