Politics – birdpuk

March 26, 2021March 26, 2021

CCP Adviser Outlined Detailed Plan to Defeat US, Including Manipulating Elections

Then U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, a Democrat, (R) and then Chinese Vice Chair Xi Jinping talk during an expanded bilateral meeting with other U.S. and Chinese officials in the Roosevelt Room at the White House in Washington on Feb. 14, 2012. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

A leading Chinese professor—who is also an adviser to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)—laid out a comprehensive plan for the communist regime to overthrow the United States as the world’s superpower.

The professor’s multi-pronged strategy involves a range of malign actions to subvert the United States while strengthening the Chinese regime. They include: interfering in U.S. elections, controlling the American market, cultivating global enemies to challenge the United States, stealing American technology, expanding Chinese territory, and influencing international organizations.

The plan was explained in detail by Jin Canrong, a professor and associate dean of the School of International Studies at Beijing’s Renmin University of China, in a July 2016 speech on “Sino-U.S. Strategic Philosophy” given over two full days at Southern Club Hotel Business Class in south China’s Guangzhou City.

“We want to be the world leader,” Jin said, explaining Chinese Leader Xi Jinping’s desire for a “national rejuvenation” of the country.

Dubbed “teacher of the state” by Chinese netizens, Jin is a prominent scholar known for his fiery anti-U.S. rhetoric. He is an advisor to two powerful bodies of the CCP, the Organization Department, and the United Front Work Department, though it is unclear how close he is to Xi.

Epoch Times Photo — The title screen of a propaganda program called “How Xi Jinping Led China’s COVID-19 Battle,” from the CGTN archive is seen as it plays on a computer monitor in London, England on Feb. 04, 2021. (Leon Neal/Getty Images)

Weakening the United States

The strategy to topple the United States was composed of two broad components: weakening America through both internal and foreign sources; and strengthening the Chinese regime’s economic, military, and diplomatic power.

Using a metaphor of a company to illustrate the U.S.-China dynamic, Jin likened the United States to a company president, and China to a vice president who wants the top job.

“The United States is a middle-aged man, who is good looking, has strong capabilities, and support from most employees,” Jin said.

“[To replace it], we first need to create the conditions to make it easier for the United States to make mistakes. Second, we should make it as busy as possible [dealing with problems], to the extent that it will feel depressed and want to give up. Third, we should become intertwined with the United States, so that it can’t attack us.”

Jin said the CCP was thinking of many ways to weaken the United States, which he described as a “very difficult” task. The professor offered four practical tactics.

1. Manipulating Elections

Jin suggested that the CCP should interfere in U.S. elections to bring pro-Beijing candidates to power. He singled out races for seats in the House of Representatives as an easy target.

“The Chinese government wants to arrange Chinese investments in every single congressional district to control thousands of voters in each district,” Jin said.

He noted with a population (at the time) of about 312 million and 435 congressional districts, roughly 750,000 residents live in each district.

“The voting rate in the United States is about 30 percent, which means around 200,000 residents in each congressional district vote for the representative in that district,” Jin said. “Normally the difference of votes between two candidates is 10,000 or less. If China has thousands of votes on hand, China will be the boss of the candidates.”

Jin said China’s ambition is to control at least the House.

“The best scenario is China can buy the United States, and change the U.S. House of Representatives into the second Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress,” he said, referring to the committee that oversees the CCP’s rubber-stamp legislature.

2. Controlling the US Market

Ramping up Chinese investments in the United States is another way to exert influence in the country’s political system, Jin said, noting that this tactic has the added benefit of enriching Chinese business people and the CCP.

“The investment opportunities in the United States are relatively good,” he said. “The U.S. market is open—more open than the Japanese and European ones,” he continued, adding that its benefits include its size, transparency, and stability.

He said the Chinese regime wants Chinese business people to control the U.S. market, and also for them to develop their businesses in the country.

To reach this goal, the Chinese regime had tried to negotiate with Washington for the U.S.-China Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). The agreement was actively negotiated for the decade prior to 2017, but fell off the agenda during President Donald Trump’s administration.

Some U.S. companies wishing to enter the Chinese market, and the U.S.-China Business Council have advocated for the signing of a BIT.

3. Fostering Enemies of the US

Jin said the CCP’s “strategic task” was to make sure the United States has not less than four enemies.

Four enemies are needed to stretch the United States’ resources while bogging the government down in domestic debates over which threat to prioritize, Jin said.

For instance, before WWII the United States had two adversaries, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. “The Americans debated over and over about who is the real threat,” he said.

“If the United States has four enemies, it will totally lose its direction.”

Analyzing the situation as of 2016, Jin concluded that the United States only has three adversaries: “Terrorism is definitely an enemy of the United States. Russia looks like another one … Definitely, the United States treats us as a competitor … It’s not enough.”

The professor said that in the past few years, the CCP had tried to develop Brazil into an adversary of the United States, but was unsuccessful because Brazil “didn’t want to be improved.”

He said the CCP had pumped a lot of investment into Brazil in the bid to get its support on global issues, including taking stances against the United States. Xi had visited Brazil in 2014 and agreed to invest in infrastructure in the country’s western region, as well as a railway to link ports in Brazil and Peru.

Jin said the Chinese regime has given up on this approach and is trying to find a candidate to develop into a U.S. adversary.

4. Causing International Problems for the US

Jin said the Chinese regime was at a strategic advantage due to the United States’ role as global enforcer: whenever there is a crisis in the world, the United States would have to intervene to maintain global stability, which in turn drains U.S. resources and diverts its attention away from China.

As examples, he cited the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, which he described as “completely not strategically valuable” endeavors that cost the United States “$6 trillion and 10,000 soldiers’ lives.”

The result was that the United States “wasted ten years [without being aware of China’s development], and let China grow big,” Jin said.

Another possible tactic is to sell the CCP’s holding of U.S. Treasury bonds to precipitate a debt crisis, he said. According to the U.S. Treasury, China currently holds nearly $1.1 trillion in U.S. treasury securities.

Finally, engaging in drawn-out negotiations with the United States is also an effective strategy to bog down the United States, while giving the regime the time to focus on developing itself, according to Jin. During such negotiations, the United States wouldn’t take punitive actions against the CCP such as sanctions, and instead focus its energy on preparing and carrying out the talks. Meanwhile, the Chinese regime, which has no intention of negotiating in good faith, would use the breathing space given to it over the course of the negotiations to solidify its power both inside and outside of China.

Former deputy national security advisor Matthew Pottinger in February warnedof the CCP’s “negotiation traps.” Pottinger said years of successive formal dialogues between the two sides, such as the “Strategic Economic Dialogue” allowed the regime to “draw out the clock” and continue its economic assaults on the United States with impunity.

Strengthening the Chinese Regime

Jin said the Chinese regime has greatly relied on the U.S. trade and investments to spur its economic development over the past four decades. He highlighted four approaches to expand the CCP’s economic and political power at home and abroad.

1. Stealing US Technology

The professor admitted that the CCP has depended on stolen American technology to fuel its growth.

“China’s industry has a large output, but lacks certain technology,” Jin said. “In the past 30 years, we bought technology, 46 percent of which were from Germany. But the United States has the best technology, but it doesn’t sell to us.”

He added, “Americans think that Chinese hackers steal a lot of their things. This may very well be true.” Jin said key technology for China’s J-20 fighter jet and DF-41 intercontinental ballistic missile was stolen from the United States.

The regime is also eager to get its hands on American space technology.

In June 2016, China’s Long March 7 rocket sent an orbital debris clean-up satellite Aolong-1 to space. Beijing claimed that Aolong-1 only brought space debris back to earth, but Jin suggested the satellite had another mission.

“The U.S. said that [Aolong-1] was collecting American satellites [from the space], and bringing them back to China,” Jin said. “We can disassemble [the American] satellites and reassemble them into Chinese ones.”

2. Expanding the Regime’s Territory

Jin believed that the Chinese regime would occupy the whole of the South China Sea and Taiwan in the near future.

The CCP lays claim to almost all of the South China Sea despite a 2016 ruling by an international court finding that its territorial claims were unlawful. The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan also have competing claims in the waterways. Home to rich fishing grounds and potentially valuable natural resources, the South China Sea is also one of the world’s major shipping routes.

Beijing has sought to bolster its claims in the strategic waterways by building artificial islands in the area and building military outposts on them.

“In one and half years [in 2013 and 2014 under Xi’s administration], China has created more than 3,200 acres of territory. The other four claimant states have created only 100 acres in 45 years,” Jin said.

Jin predicted that the CCP would continue to create more features in the South China Sea.

He also boasted about the regime’s success in wresting control of the Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines in 2012 with the help of Chinese fishing boats and coast guard vessels.

“Even if the Philippines wants the United States to take over the reefs [in the South China Sea], the United States can’t guard them,” Jin said. “If the United States stations an aircraft carrier there, China can simply send 2,000 fishing boats and surround the carrier. Then the carrier doesn’t dare to fire at the fishing boats.”

In relation to Taiwan, the CCP has more ways to bring the democratic island under its control, Jin said. The regime views the self-ruled island as part of its territory and has vowed to bring Taiwan under its fold with force if necessary. For instance, the regime could bribe Taiwanese politicians, ban trade and tourism from China, convince the few remaining countries that recognize Taiwan diplomatically to switch to China, blocking Taiwan’s participation in international organizations and meetings, and assassinating some Taiwanese to instill fear among the population.

3. Building Global Influence By Leading Projects

Xi’s global strategy to bolster the regime’s global power has two pillars, according to Jin. One is the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the other is the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP).

BRI, previously known as One Belt One Road, is a massive global investment strategy launched by the CCP in 2013 aimed at bolstering its economic and political influence across Asia, Europe, Africa, and South America. The project involves investments in infrastructure and natural resource projects in countries. It has been criticized by the United States and other countries as an example of “debt trap” diplomacy, that saddles developing countries with unsustainable debt burdens while allowing the regime to export its technology and governance abroad.

“The ultimate purpose of BRI is to team up with the industrial power Germany. Then there’s no position of the United States in the world’s industrial playing field,” Jin said.

Similarly, Jin said the FTAAP, a proposed free trade agreement between 21 Asian-Pacific countries, would also open a conduit of influence for the CCP in the region.

The professor also believed that Chinese-backed development banks, the New Development Bank and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, would work to Beijing’s advantage, as countries that received loans from the banks would then be beholden to the regime, Jin said.

“We are building up our friend’s circle in the world. We will be more powerful than the United States with more friends,” he said. “Then we can tell the United States that we are the only representative of the world.”

4. Influencing International Organizations

Jin also explained the CCP’s plan to exert greater influence over global bodies such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization, Interpol, the International Monetary Fund, the International Olympic Committee, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The Chinese regime’s goal is for “all these international organizations to be controlled by China. We can appoint someone who speaks Chinese [who represents China] to be its leaders,” Jin said.

During his speech, Jin emphasized that Xi was unlike his predecessors in his ambitions. Previous CCP leaders, such as Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, and Hu Jintao worked hard to develop the regime’s power but didn’t dare to use it, he said.

“No matter how much power you have, it’s nothing if you don’t dare to use it,” Jin said. “Chairman Xi dares to use it. [Xi’s authorities] have the power, dare to use that power, and all of its attacks make the other party bleed.”

Xi’s ambitions, however, cannot be revealed to the outside world, the professor said.

When Xi took power in 2012, he urged the country to realize the “Chinese dream.” This meant becoming a “moderately well-off” country by 2021, and then a “strong, democratic, civilized, harmonious, and modern socialist country” by 2049.

Jin explained that Xi’s target is actually to replace the United States as the world’s only superpower by 2049.

“[Chinese] Ministry of Foreign Affairs keeps on saying [at press briefings] that China loves peace. But no reporters at the press briefings believe this,” Jin said.

Source: CCP Adviser Outlined Detailed Plan to Defeat US, Including Manipulating Elections

March 6, 2021March 6, 2021

Key Things You Need to Know About HR 1, the For the People Act of 2021

Residents drop mail-in ballots in a ballot box outside of the Tippecanoe branch library in Milwaukee, Wis., on Oct. 20, 2020. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

On Wednesday, Democrats in the House passed H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2021, which was introduced by Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.). The election reform package, if passed by the Senate, would transfer authority over how elections are administered from states to the federal government, subject private citizens, to intimidation and harassment for their private and political beliefs, and make permanent many voting rules that opponents say lead to voter fraud.

The 791 page-long H.R. 1 legislation package, which was marked up by members of the 116th Congress, was adopted without much debate. Some provisions, like ensuring that all voting machines used in U.S. elections are also manufactured in the United States or increasing access for voters with disabilities, are supported by both sides, but most other provisions are contentious.

The sweeping election reform package is divided into three major sections; the second section is the main body of the legislation, with three subsections: a) Voting, b) Campaign Finance, and c) Ethics. Section three is the Findings of General Constitutional Authority and section four is the Standards for Judicial Review.

These are some of the key changes to election laws in H.R. 1:

Gives the federal government authority to administer elections: Although the U.S. Constitution gives states the authority to run their elections as they see fit, Democrats have interpreted the Constitution in their favor, stating in H.R. 1, “Congress finds that it has broad authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of congressional elections under the Elections Clause of the Constitution, Article I, section 4.”
Limits a plaintiff’s access to federal courts when challenging H.R. 1: It would mandate that any lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of H.R. 1 could only be filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia and all plaintiffs would be required “to file joint papers or to be represented by a single attorney at oral argument.”
Mandates automatic voter registration (AVR) in all 50 states (19 states currently have AVR): Democrats call this “modernizing” elections, meaning automatically registering any person that has given information to designated government agencies, such as the Department of Motor Vehicles, a public university, or a social service agency would be registered. It mandates same-day and online registration.
Mandates no-fault absentee ballots: This provision would do away with witness signature or notarization requirements for absentee ballots. Additionally, it would force states to accept absentee ballots received up to 10 days after Election Day.
Prevents election officials from removing ineligible voters from registries or confirming the eligibility and qualifications of voters: The bill would make it illegal to verify the address of registered voters, cross-checking voter registration lists to find individuals registered in multiple states, or ever removing registrants no matter how much time has elapsed.
Restores the Voting Rights Act: This provision would require states to obtain approval from the federal government before implementing any voting rules changes. H.R. 1 would add a provision criminalizing “hindering, interfering, or preventing” anyone from registering or voting.
Bans state voter ID laws: It would force states to allow individuals to vote without an ID and instead they could merely sign a statement in which they claim they are who they say they are.
Ensures illegal immigrants can vote: The bill would shield non-citizens from prosecution if they are registered to vote automatically and agencies are not required to keep records of who declined to affirm their citizenship.
Allows same-day voter registration: “Each State shall permit any eligible individual on the day of a Federal election and on any day when voting, including early voting, is permitted for a Federal election—to register to vote in such election at the polling place … [and] to cast a vote in such election.” The section includes a clause that requires same-day voter registration to be implemented in time for the upcoming elections in 2022.
Requires registration for those under 18: “States to carry out a plan to increase the involvement of individuals under 18 years of age in public election activities in the State.”
Prohibits the publication of “misleading information” about elections: The bill makes it a federal crime to “communicate or cause to be communicated information” that is knowingly false, and designed to discourage voting, carrying with it a sentence of up to five years.
Allows felons to vote: It limits federal dollars to prisons of those states who do not register ex-convicts to vote. The provision is called the “Democracy Restoration Act.” The bill says that all felons can vote unless they are “serving a felony sentence in a correctional institution or facility at the time of the election.”
Mandates early voting: “Each State shall allow individuals to vote in an election for Federal office during an early voting period which occurs prior to the date of the election, in the same manner as voting is allowed on such date.”
Legalizes nationwide vote-by-mail, without photo ID: States are required to provide for absentee vote-by-mail in elections for Federal offices and “may not require an individual to provide any form of identification as a condition of obtaining an absentee ballot.” A witness signature will not be required.
Promotes ballot harvesting: The bill says states “shall permit a voter to designate any person to return a voted and sealed absentee ballot to the post office, a ballot drop-off location, tribally designated building, or election office so long as the person designated to return the ballot does not receive any form of compensation based on the number of ballots” and ” may not put any limit on how many voted and sealed absentee ballots any designated person can return.”
Requires states to accept ballots 10 days after Election Day: The bill requires states to accept any mailed ballots postmarked before, or on, Election Day if they arrive within 10 days of the election. It allows states to expand that deadline.
Prohibits state election officials from campaigning in federal elections: The bill bans “a chief State election administration official to take an active part in political management or in a political campaign with respect to any election for Federal office over which such official has supervisory authority.”
Requires “Campus Vote Coordinators” at higher institutes of learning: The bill would require colleges and universities to hire an official whose responsibility would be to inform students about elections and encourage voter registration. It would incentivize voter registration by giving grants to institutions that have a high registration rate.
Mandates that states make absentee voter boxes available for 45 days within an election: “In each county in the State, each State shall provide in-person, secured, and clearly labeled drop boxes at which individuals may, at any time during the period described in subsection (b), drop off voted absentee ballots in an election for Federal office.” These boxes should be “available to all voters on a non-discriminatory basis” and “during all hours of the day.”
Requires curbside voting: States may not “prohibit any jurisdiction administering an election for Federal office in the State from utilizing curbside voting as a method by which individuals may cast ballots in the election.”
Urges D.C. statehood and representation for territories: The bill complains that D.C. is not yet a state, adding, “The United States is the only democratic country that denies both voting representation in the national legislature and local self-government to the residents of its Nation’s capital.” The bill also appoints a commission that would advocate for congressional representation and presidential votes.
Requires that “independent” congressional district commissions be set up: Taking power away from the state legislature, but evidence shows that “independent” redistricting commissions are in truth run by Democrats for their advantage.
Creates a “National Commission to Protect United States Democratic Institutions.”: The commission would study elections and produce a report after 18 months with recommendations for improving elections but would consist of 10 members, only four of whom would be selected by the minority party, giving the majority (Democrat) party control.
Mandates new disclosure for corporations: The bill codifies the Democrats’ DISCLOSE Act, to restrict corporate participation in elections. Democrats say this provision will shed light on dark money. Republicans counter that the legislation’s transparency requirements would violate free speech rights.
Oversight of online political advertising: The provision called the “Stand By Every Ad Act” would stop campaign dollars from covering any form of advertising over the Internet. Opponents say this would increase the cost of campaigning.
Weakens the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, calling it “erroneous”: “The Supreme Court’s misinterpretation of the Constitution to empower monied interests at the expense of the American people in elections has seriously eroded over 100 years of congressional action to promote fairness and protect elections from the toxic influence of money.” It goes further to suggest “the Constitution should be amended so that Congress and the States may regulate and set limits on the raising and spending of money.”
Allows politicians to use campaign funds for personal use: Under a provision called the “Help America Run Act,” the bill legalizes the use of campaign donations for personal expenses such as child care.
Changes the composition of the FEC: The bill would decrease the number of the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) members from six to five. Four members can be associated with a particular political party, making the fifth member “independent” but who would be nominated by a president associated with a party. Former FEC members have written to Congress, warning about this change and other related provisions.
Changes rules “around conflicts of interest” for the president and vice president: It would require the president or vice president to divest all financial interests that could pose a conflict of interest for them, their families, or anyone with whom they are negotiating or who is seeking employment in their administration.
Changes FEC rules to require presidential candidates to provide their tax returns: The bill states, “Not later than the date that is 15 days after the date on which an individual becomes a covered candidate, the individual shall submit to the Federal Election Commission a copy of the individual’s income tax returns for the 10 most recent taxable years for which a return has been filed with the Internal Revenue Service.”

Source: Key Things You Need to Know About HR 1, the For the People Act of 2021

February 17, 2021February 17, 2021

Opinion: Joe Biden Just Made the Worst Foreign Policy Blunder Since 1950

Buildings at the Artux City Vocational Skills Education Training Service Center, believed to be a re-education camp where mostly Muslim ethnic minorities are detained, north of Kashgar in China's northwestern Xinjiang region, on June 2, 2019. (Greg Baker/AFP via Getty Images)

Commentary by Thomas Del Beccaro

Recently, I wrote that the world would be “Living Dangerously for Four Years Under Joe Biden.” In plain terms, Joe Biden is not physically or mentally up to the job.

By dismissing the Chinese regime’s atrocities against the Uyghurs, a Muslim minority who live in Xinjiang in northwest China, as part of “different norms,” Biden could be plunging the world into an international crisis sooner than any of us could have imagined.

In 1968, the historian Will Durant wrote in his “Lessons of History,” that “War is one of the constants of history, and has not diminished with civilization or democracy. In the last 3,421 years of recorded history, only 268 have seen no war.” Sadly, there has been a war somewhere in the world every year since.

Regardless of the luxuries in which Americans live, it remains true that, in every era, there are regimes that are barbaric or seek domination of their people and often the regions around them, if not more.

China is one such country. Recently, it was reported by the New York Post that “The State Department said it was ‘deeply disturbed’ by a report that claims Muslim women being held in Chinese re-education camps detaining millions of Uyghurs are being systematically raped, sexually abused and tortured.”

While not every atrocity can be remedied by the United States, none of them should be tolerated. All of them should be met by statements from our Commander in Chief that America aspires for freedom for everyone and that no atrocity can be justified or tolerated.

Beyond that, an administration should use diplomacy and economic sanctions at a minimum to confront the atrocities. Military intervention, while a last resort, should never be taken off the table.

With respect to China, a country that permits live organ harvesting, military intervention is not an option for those atrocities. Clear-eyed resolve, diplomacy, and sanctions, however, are a must.

All of which brings us to Joe Biden’s statement related to China and the Uyghurs. In a rambling response on national television, Biden first justified China’s abuses by saying:

“If you know anything about Chinese history, it has always been, the time when China has been victimized by the outer world is when they haven’t been unified at home . . . So the central—well, vastly overstated—the central principle of [Chinese leader] Xi Jinping is that there must be a united, tightly controlled China. And he uses his rationale for the things he does based on that.”

He also said, “Culturally there are different norms that each country and their leaders are expected to follow.”

Atrocities are not justifiable norms and prior wrongs don’t justify current atrocities.

Biden’s comments could be the worst foreign policy blunder since Secretary of State Dean G. Acheson’s speech at the National Press Club on Jan. 12, 1950. In that speech, he “defined the American ‘defensive perimeter’ in the Pacific as a line running through Japan, the Ryukyus, and the Philippines. This denied a guarantee of US military protection to the Republic of Korea (ROK).”

Not long after, the world was plunged into the Korean War after North Korea invaded South Korea in June of 1950. Many reasonably believe that Acheson’s statement that the United States’ sphere of concern, i.e. its defense perimeter, didn’t include what is South Korea today was a green light for North Korea, with the support of China and Russia, to invade South Korea.

Joe Biden’s comments just gave comfort to China that the United States won’t interfere in its domestic atrocities. The same words shall give comfort to Iran, Russia, and every dictator around the world—regardless of whether clarifying statements are made by the Administration in the days and weeks ahead.

God only knows what they will do with Biden’s green light.

The world, on the other hand, now knows just how weak Joe Biden is.

One lesson of history is that wars are started based on an adversary’s weakness and that is why the world will be living dangerously under Joe Biden.

Thomas Del Beccaro is an acclaimed author, speaker, Fox News, Fox Business, and Epoch Times opinion writer, and former chairman of the California Republican Party. He is the author of the historical perspectives “The Divided Era” and “The New Conservative Paradigm

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Birdpuk.com

Source: Opinion: Joe Biden Just Made the Worst Foreign Policy Blunder Since 1950

February 11, 2021February 11, 2021

Trump Impeachment ‘Political Theater,’ Ignores US History: Constitutional Lawyer

Constitutional lawyer Rick Green in an interview with "American Thought Leaders." (The Epoch Times)

The impeachment effort against former President Donald Trump is “political theater” that goes against the history of the United States and the American Constitution itself, according to constitutional attorney Rick Green.

“When we have political actors involved, we get political theater. And that’s a lot of what we’re getting here. Is this the judiciary now? Is the Senate now the judiciary that will try any citizen? Because an impeachment is specifically for someone that is in office, according to the American Constitution,” Green, a former Texas state representative and co-founder of the Patriot Academy, told “American Thought Leaders.”

Trump’s attorneys have stated that it goes against the Constitution to impeach or try a former office-holder.

“Virtually everyone agrees that impeachment in our Constitution is designed for those three categories listed in Article 2, Section 4. And that’s the president, the vice president, and civil officers—so people that are still serving in office,” Green said.

He said the concept being pushed currently in the impeachment trial—that if Trump isn’t convicted he will get away with doing “horrible things,” and future presidents will be able to “do whatever they want and get away with it”—is “a total red herring.”

“It’s literally fantasy,” the attorney said.

House Democrats, joined by 10 Republicans, voted on Jan. 13 to approve a single article of impeachment (pdf) against Trump for “incitement of insurrection,” making him the first president to be impeached twice. On Feb. 9, he became the first former president to stand trial.

Democrats allege that the president incited violence at the Capitol in a speech he delivered near the White House on Jan 6. In his address, Trump used the words “fight like hell” in reference to his team’s legal efforts around election integrity. The Democrats allege that Trump used the words to incite his followers to commit violence.

However, Democratic House impeachment managers, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), in their arguments on Feb. 10, presented no new evidence to support the allegation that Trump incited an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol last month.

donald trump, trump — President Donald Trump at the Save America rally in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. (Lisa Fan/The Epoch Times)

Green suggested that in this case, constitutional provisions are being abused in order to “silence” the “opposition.”

“My fear is a separation of powers conflict here that the Senate becomes more and more the judiciary… and now if they can go after someone that’s a citizen like Donald Trump is today, well, they can indict you. They can indict me, they can prevent us from running for future office.

“I know that was not the view of the Founding Fathers. And when you abuse a constitutional provision in one instance, then other people will be able to abuse it in other instances in the future.”

The constitutional attorney accused the Democratic House impeachment managers of stringing elements of the American Constitution together in order to argue that a former president can be impeached.

“I’ve said this throughout this whole process that what they’re doing and pulling together different parts of the Constitution and creating these new rules is more worthy of a banana republic than a constitutional republic,” he said.

Green said language from Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution was taken, “separated,” and mixed with some of the language in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, in a way that was both “masterful” and “deceptive.”

“The reason they’re doing that is because on one hand, they want to say he’s the president. On the other hand, they want to say, it doesn’t matter if he’s the president, he did something awful, and we can still impeach. Putting those things together is the way that they’re trying to make their case. It’s when we say political theater,” he explained.

“They took a few kernels of truth—a few phrases out of the Constitution that are obviously there, and even few historical stories. They used those to weave that together to create a fantasy of a situation that has never been done in history—but it feels like it’s accurate and is truth because of the little kernels of truth that were thrown out there. That’s frankly good political theater,” Green said of the impeachment managers in the way that they presented their arguments.

The attorney said that at this point, the United States is living “post-Constitution,” and urged Americans to read the text of the Constitution themselves.

“We’re literally ignoring the constitutional history and the plain text of the Constitution. I think it’s important for us to actually as citizens, to go look at the Constitution ourselves, and not just listen to the silver tongue rhetoric,” he said.

He added: “It’s just like any other trial, you walk into a trial. If trial attorneys are really good, they paint the picture that they want you to believe and I’m afraid they’ve done that in this case, but it is new territory, and it ignores 240 years of history in the United States. And most importantly, it ignores the Constitution itself.”

The Democrats face an uphill battle in convincing enough Republican senators that Trump should be convicted. Forty-four Republicans voted on the first day of the trial that the Senate doesn’t have jurisdiction to try Trump because he’s now a private citizen. Several Republican senators said on Feb. 9 that the vote is an indicator of how the GOP members will ultimately vote on the question of whether the former president is guilty.

Democrats need the votes of at least 17 Republicans in order to secure the supermajority needed to convict Trump. If the vote from the first day of the trial is any indication, the impeachment managers need to change the minds of at least 11 Republicans, a task which even liberal media commentators concede is virtually impossible.

https://www.scribd.com/document/494198699/Impeachment-Resolution

Source: Trump Impeachment ‘Political Theater,’ Ignores US History: Constitutional Lawyer

February 9, 2021February 9, 2021

Facebook Hires NATO Press Officer as Intelligence Chief

Feature photo | George Washington University School of Media & Public Affairs | Additions and editing by MintPress News

February 09th, 2021

By Alan Macleod

Ben Nimmo, a former NATO press officer and current senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, has announced Facebook has hired him to “lead global threat intelligence strategy against influence operations” and “emerging threats.” Nimmo specifically named Russia, Iran and China as potential dangers to the platform.

His announcement was greeted with joy by several NATO officials but was not met with such enthusiasm by others. “More censorship on the way as the former NATO press officer turned Pentagon-funded ‘researcher’ who labeled real people as Russian bots and peddled disinformation to link Jeremy Corbyn to Russian active measures moves to big tech,” responded investigative journalist Max Blumenthal.

More censorship on the way as the former NATO press officer turned Pentagon-funded “researcher” who labeled real people as Russian bots and peddled disinformation to link Jeremy Corbyn to Russian active measures moves to Big Tech https://t.co/XcfGbdPJtv
— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) February 7, 2021

Nimmo’s questionable past certainly raises questions over whether such an official having a substantial say in what 2.8 billion Facebook users worldwide see in their feeds is such a positive step for the free and open exchange of information.

“Disinformation agents”

For example, in 2019, U.K. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn revealed secret Conservative Party documents showing negotiations the Tory government had with the U.S. over the privatization of the National Health Service (NHS). With just days to go before the U.K. general election, the scandal could have toppled the government and brought into power the most radical antiwar, anti-establishment government in the country’s history. Corporate media went into overdrive to spin the news, and Nimmo was a key part of this, immediately announcing, without evidence, that the documents “closely resemble…a known Russian operation.” His supposedly expert conjecture allowed the story to become “Corbyn’s links to Russia” rather than “Tories privatizing the NHS in secret.” Nimmo’s work helped the Conservatives to an election victory and consigned Corbyn to the scrapheap.

This was much to the relief of Nimmo’s Atlantic Council, who had brandedCorbyn the “Kremlin’s Trojan Horse” — someone pushing Moscow’s agenda abroad. A British Army general was of a similar opinion, claiming that if Corbyn were to win the election, the military would respond. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also said that the U.S. government was “doing its best” to prevent a radical leftist from winning power in the U.K.

Nimmo has been extremely liberal with whom he labels Russian disinformation agents. In 2018, his research identified one Twitter user, @Ian56789, as a “Kremlin troll.” In reality, the user, Ian Shilling, was a British pensioner, as Sky News was easily able to confirm, interviewing him on air and asking him the patently absurd question if he was actually a Russian bot or not. Despite clearly being a flesh and blood human, Shilling’s account was later deleted anyway.

In the past, Nimmo has also insisted that Ruslana Boshirova was an influential Russian bot. In reality, she is an internationally known concert pianist, as one Google search would have shown. This sort of behavior does not augur well for those critical of Western foreign policy, who have faced constant harassment, suspension, or outright bans from social media.

NATO's Atlantic Council "analyst" @benimmo has called me an influential Russian bot.
Influential? You bet.
With 170 000 000 YouTube views
and 400 000 subscribers.
Russian? Oh well, Ukrainian-American🙄, but take it as a compliment. 😉
Bot? Yeah. Humans can't play like this. pic.twitter.com/pReCwBBaZ5
— Ruslana Boshirova Альянс пианистов (@ValLisitsa) March 27, 2018

Pro-war putsch

The Atlantic Council began as an offshoot of NATO itself and maintains extremely close connections to the military alliance. It continues to receive major funding from Western governments and weapons contractors, and its board of directors is filled to the brim with senior American statespersons, such as Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Henry Kissinger. Also appearing on the board are no fewer than seven former CIA directors and a number of top military generals, such as Jim “Mad Dog” Mattis, Wesley Clark, and David Petraeus.

In recent years, the council’s employees have penetrated deep into big tech and social media organizations. In 2018, it announced it had partnered with Facebook to aid in the curation of Facebook news feeds of users worldwide, giving it considerable power over what sort of views to highlight and which to demote. One year previously, Jessica Ashooh left the position of the council’s Deputy Director of Middle Eastern Strategy to take the position of Director of Policy at Reddit, the eighth-most visited website in the United States. However, as with many intelligence agencies, it is unclear whether one truly “leaves” the Atlantic Council.

It is not just Russia that is in NATO’s crosshairs. Last week, the Atlantic Council published an anonymous, 26,000-word report stating that their goal for China was regime change and advising President Biden to draw a number of “red lines” around it, beyond which the U.S. would respond militarily. Meanwhile, the head of STRATCOM, Admiral Charles A. Richard, wrote that the U.S. must prepare for a potential nuclear war with Beijing.

Greater control

The military escalation has been mirrored by an intensifying online propaganda war, where the U.S. has attempted to isolate China economically and stop advancing Chinese technologies such as Huawei’s 5G network, mobile phone, and semiconductor manufacturer Xiaomi, and video sharing app TikTok. Nimmo has played his part in ramping up suspicions of nefarious Chinese activity online, claiming the existence of a wide-ranging pro-Beijing bot network encouraging Americans to believe that China has handled the COVID-19 pandemic far better than the United States. That Americans might have come to that conclusion on their own appears not to have been considered.

There is an enormous government effort to convince its population of the existence of (foreign) government efforts to manipulate their opinions online. In a massive case of projection, Western governmental organizations point the finger at their enemies, all the while securing greater access and control over the means of communication themselves, to the point where it is now difficult to distinguish where the deep state ends and the fourth estate begins. Nimmo’s move from NATO to NATO-aligned think tank to Facebook is just another example of this phenomenon. Perhaps the reason Nimmo is not looking for any Western influence operations online is that he is part of one.

Source: Facebook Hires NATO Press Officer as Intelligence Chief

January 30, 2021January 30, 2021

Republicans Pan Pentagon Move to Give COVID-19 Vaccines to Guantanamo Detainees

The entrance to Camp VI, a prison used to house detainees at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on March 5, 2013. (Bob Strong/Reuters)

Republican lawmakers took aim at reports that the Pentagon would give COVID-19 vaccines to detainees at Guantanamo Bay while millions of vulnerable Americans wait in line for their turn to get inoculated.

Recent reports indicate that the Pentagon plans to offer vaccines to the 40 prisoners housed at the facility starting as early as next week. Those detained in Guantanamo Bay include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks which killed 2,977 Americans.

Department of Defense spokesman Michael Howard told The New York Post that an order had been signed that will see vaccinations “offered to all detainees and prisoners” and will be administered on a voluntary basis.

Clayton Trivett, the prosecutor in the case against five Guantanamo Bay prisoners who stand accused of taking part in plotting the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, wrote a letter to defense lawyers saying that “an official in the Pentagon has just signed a memo approving the delivery of the COVID-19 vaccine to the detainee population in Guantánamo,” according to The New York Times.

The move has sparked anger among Republican lawmakers, with some accusing President Joe Biden of putting the needs of accused terrorists ahead of law-abiding Americans.

“It is inexcusable and un-American that President Biden is choosing to prioritize vaccinations for convicted terrorists in Gitmo over vulnerable American seniors or veterans,” Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) said in a tweet Saturday.

“Outrageous. The Biden Administration is giving vaccines to terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. What do they say to American seniors and veterans still waiting for theirs?” Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) wrote in a tweet Saturday.

“Nothing says #unity like letting the 9/11 mastermind & Gitmo detainees skip in front of millions of Americans for the COVID #vaccine,” said Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.), in a tweet.

The U.S. naval base in Guantanamo began inoculating its 6,000 residents earlier this month, although detainees were not believed to have been included.

Biden has made ramping up vaccinations a priority, announcing a plan to inoculate 100 million Americans in his first 100 days in office.

The move to include Gitmo detainees in the vaccination rollout also sparked outrage from New Yorkers who witnessed the collapse of the World Trade Center firsthand and helped respond to the fallout.

“You can’t make this up. The ridiculousness of what we get from our government. They will run the vaccine down to those lowlifes at Guantanamo Bay before every resident of the United States of America gets it is the theater of the absurd,” said Tom Von Essen, who was city Fire Commissioner during 9/11 and lost 343 firefighters that day, according to The New York Post.

Source: Republicans Pan Pentagon Move to Give COVID-19 Vaccines to Guantanamo Detainees

January 29, 2021January 29, 2021

State Republican Parties Stand as Firewall for Trump In Fight Over Future of GOP

Then-President Donald Trump returns to the White House in Washington on March 25, 2018. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)

State and county Republican Party committees have rushed to former President Donald Trump’s defense in the face of his upcoming impeachment trial, highlighting the former president’s popularity and power within the GOP.

The House voted to impeach Trump earlier this month on the sole impeachment charge of “incitement of insurrection,” with Democrats claiming he incited violence at the U.S. Capitol earlier this month. Trump called on the protesters not to engage in violent acts before the protest and later told them to “go home in peace.”

Forty-five Republican senators voted several days ago against holding an impeachment trial, arguing it would be unconstitutional to impeach a former president, sending a signal that there are not enough votes to convict Trump, with a conviction requiring a two-thirds majority.

capitol — Protesters clash with police at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. (Julio Cortez/AP Photo)

At the same time, in both swing states and Republican bastions, state and local GOP committees, which are stocked with Trump supporters who remain loyal, members have moved to punish Republicans who have called for Trump’s impeachment.

On Saturday, the South Carolina Republican Party will decide whether to censure Rep. Tom Rice (R-S.C.) for his vote to impeach Trump. Rice was among 10 Republicans who joined Democrats to impeach Trump over the Capitol riot.

Republican Party chairwoman Dreama Perdue, GOP chairwoman in Rice’s home Horry County, said the move is meant as a rebuke for what many of his constituents consider an act of betrayal.

The effect amounts to a firewall protecting Trump and his politics from Republicans who want to cut ties with the former president.

In Washington state, several county party committees have called for the removal of the two House members who voted for Trump’s impeachment. Primary challengers have begun lining up to take on all 10 Republican House members who voted to impeach the former president.

Arizona Republican Party Chairwoman Kelli Ward, a staunch Trump ally, was reelected on Jan. 22, fending off several challengers for the role, after the former president endorsed her for another two-year term. In a short call last week, Trump called on Arizonans to reelect Ward, saying that he gives her his “complete and total endorsement,” due to her stances on a number of issues.

“She is a terrific person. She is a person I know. You’ll never find anybody as dedicated to every aspect we’re all dedicated to,” Trump said, in his first post-White House endorsement.

Trump’s hold on state parties reflects the ex-president’s continued popularity with the base and the loyalty he has gained in the typically obscure local GOP apparatus.

Trump brought in millions of new voters to the party with his populist approach. And Republicans should welcome those voters’ decision to stay involved, even when Trump is not on the ballot, argued Constantin Querard, a conservative Republican strategist in Arizona.

“Without Trump, some of them will go home, but some of them will stick around forever,” he said.

And since many of the former president’s loyalists have been elected to posts with multi-year terms and positioned to keep rising, Trump’s influence on the party structure isn’t likely to wane soon.

Source: State Republican Parties Stand as Firewall for Trump In Fight Over Future of GOP

January 29, 2021January 29, 2021

Democrats Introduce Bill to ‘Massively Expand’ Mail-in Voting

Democrat lawmakers on Thursday introduced a bill dubbed the “Vote at Home Act,” which seeks to “massively expand vote-at-home ballot access,” enacting automatic voter registration and providing voters with pre-paid ballot envelopes.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) introduced the bill (pdf), saying in a press release that the legislation is meant to “fight voter suppression.”

“Our democracy is stronger when every American can vote, without standing in ridiculous lines or having to take time off work or school to exercise their Constitutional rights,” Wyden said in a statement.

The initiative stands in contrast to a bill introduced by Republicans several weeks ago, which seeks to tighten voter registration verifications and narrow rules for when and how mail-in ballots can be accepted, in a bid to strengthen the integrity of federal elections.

The Democrat lawmakers said the introduction of the bill was encouraged by what they described as “the successful expansion of voting at home and by mail in the November 2020 election,” in which almost 50 percent of voters cast ballots by mail, a record high in federal races.

“Last year we saw a widespread expansion of vote-at-home access as a safe and secure way to participate during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Blumenauer said in a statement. “We should continue to make voting easier, not harder. This important bill would strengthen and clarify the right to vote at home, the most secure and convenient way for voters to exercise the franchise.”

Critics of expanding vote-by-mail initiatives have warned of the increased potential for voter fraud, allegations of which were front and center in the contested presidential election, with President Donald Trump, members of his legal team, and supporters, making numerous claims that amounted to the charge that the election was stolen.

Peter Navarro, who served as an adviser to Trump, concluded in a sweeping report on the integrity of the 2020 election that the allegations of irregularities, including outright voter fraud, were serious enough to warrant an urgent probe and substantial enough to potentially overturn the results.

State election officials, the Justice Department, and others rejected the notion that there was widespread voter fraud in the November election.

The Democrats’ “Vote at Home Act” stipulates a range of actions that would expand vote by mail in federal elections.

“All registered voters would receive ballots in the mail weeks before Election Day, allowing them to carefully research candidates and issues well ahead of Election Day to inform their vote,” the press release states.

The bill would also grant all registered voters nationwide the ability to cast their ballots by mail or at ballot drop boxes. The act also calls for increased funding for the U.S. Postal Service to cover costs associated with processing ballots.

“This would allow states to save money by transitioning away from polling stations and reduce a major barrier for voters with the federal government absorbing the cost associated with USPS delivery,” the press release notes.

Under the provisions of the bill, states would also be required to automatically register voters when they provide identifying information to the state motor vehicle authority. Voters who do not want to remain registered would be given three weeks to opt out.

The House Republican bill, meanwhile, called the “Save Democracy Act,” seeks to create baseline protections against election irregularities and voter fraud during elections.

The GOP initiative seeks to prevent automatic voter registration for federal elections, prohibits states from sending out unrequested absentee ballots, and calls for a ban on using public ballot collection boxes.

Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), said in a press statement, “This bill will restore the public’s trust that their vote is counted and their voice is heard.”

Source: Democrats Introduce Bill to ‘Massively Expand’ Mail-in Voting

January 22, 2021January 22, 2021

Articles of Impeachment Filed Against Biden by GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene

Newly-elected Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) on Jan. 21 announced she has introduced articles of impeachment against the new president, Joe Biden.
The articles of impeachment concern Biden’s alleged actions involving a “quid pro quo” deal in Ukraine and alleged abuse of power “by allowing his son, Hunter Biden, to siphon off cash from America’s greatest enemies Russia and China,” Greene’s office announced in a statement just a day after Biden was sworn in as the 46th U.S. president.
The move comes less than a month into Greene’s first term in Congress. Democrats control both the House and Senate, so it is unlikely that the attempt to impeach Biden, a Democrat, will succeed.
“President Joe Biden is unfit to hold the office of the Presidency,” Greene said in a statement. “His pattern of abuse of power as President Obama’s Vice President is lengthy and disturbing. President Biden has demonstrated that he will do whatever it takes to bail out his son, Hunter, and line his family’s pockets with cash from corrupt foreign energy companies.”
She added, “President Biden is even on tape admitting to a quid pro quo with the Ukrainian government threatening to withhold $1,000,000,000 in foreign aid if they did not do his bidding. President Biden residing in the White House is a threat to national security and he must be immediately impeached.”
The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times.

joe biden and hunter biden — Former Vice President Joe Biden (L) and his son Hunter Biden at the Duke Georgetown NCAA college basketball game in Washington on Jan. 30, 2010. (Nick Wass/AP Photo)

At an event in 2018, Biden said that in 2016 he had threatened to withhold $1 billion in aid from Ukraine unless then-President Petro Poroshenko fired Viktor Shokin. Shokin at the time was investigating Burisma, an energy company in Ukraine for which Hunter was a board member from 2014 to at least 2018.

Biden in 2016 was responsible for overseeing anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine.

“I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,” Biden recounted at an event at the Council on Foreign Relations in 2018. “Well, son of a [expletive], he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”

Hunter Biden has said he consulted for Burisma but critics have suggested he was not doing actual work in return for his substantial income—an allegation he denies.

Biden previously denied using his influence to get Shokin fired to prevent him from investigating Hunter’s involvement. Biden claimed that the reason that Shokin was fired was because Shokin was inept.

In direct contrast to Biden’s claims, Shokin said in a sworn affidavit obtained by investigative reporter John Solomon that he was told that he was fired in March 2016 because Biden wasn’t pleased with the investigations into Burisma.

Greene alleges that Joe Biden abused his power as the country’s vice president by allowing his son “to influence the domestic policy of a foreign nation and accept various benefits—including financial compensation—from foreign nationals in exchange for certain favors.”

“During his father’s vice presidency, Hunter Biden built many business relationships with foreign nationals and received millions of dollars from foreign sources, seemingly in exchange for access to his father. The financial transactions which Hunter engaged in illustrates serious counterintelligence and extortion concerns relating to Hunter Biden and his family,” Greene’s office said.

“President Biden gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of government. Through blatant nepotism, he enabled his son to influence foreign policy and financially benefit as a result of his role as Vice President.

“He supported his son engaging in collusion with Chinese Communist party-linked officials. He allowed his son to trade appointments with his father and other high-ranking administration officials in exchange for financial compensation. He permitted his son to take money from Russian oligarchs, including Elena Baturina, the wife of the former mayor of Moscow,” it continued.

The New York Post last year obtained emails and messages from a laptop allegedly belonging to Hunter Biden, allegedly showing that he had tried to arrange a meeting between himself, his father, and a top executive at Burisma. Both Bidens have denied that a meeting took place, with Joe Biden saying that the story by the outlet was “another smear campaign.”

Other emails obtained by the outlet allegedly show that Hunter Biden was engaged in deals involving a Chinese energy giant with ties to the Chinese military–the now-bankrupt Chinese oil giant CEFC China Energy.

Tony Bobulinski, a former business partner of Hunter Biden, announced during a press conference in Nashville in October 2020 that Hunter and his associates brought him into a deal with CEFC China Energy in 2017.

A federal appeals court in New York in late December 2020 upheld the bribery conviction of Patrick Ho, a Chinese businessman and the former head a think tank funded by CEFC China Energy.

Hunter is currently under federal investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware over his taxes. The details and nature of the investigation have not been publicly disclosed. The office said it couldn’t comment on ongoing investigations.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a friend and adviser to Biden, said in December 2020 that Joe Biden will not interfere in the investigation. The then-president elect said that he was “confident” his son did nothing wrong, and later said that accusations against Hunter Biden are “foul play.”

Source: Articles of Impeachment Filed Against Biden by GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene

January 18, 2021January 18, 2021

Parler CEO ‘Confident’ Platform Will Return by End of January

Parler co-founder and CEO John Matze in Washington on June 11, 2019. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)

De-platformed social media website Parler may return by the end of January, coming after the site reappeared online after Amazon Web Services (AWS) took the site down due to alleged violations, according to Parler CEO John Matze.

“I’m confident that by the end of the month, we’ll be back up,” Matze told Fox News on Sunday night. The website reappeared online with a brief statement from Matze.

According to a WHOIS search, Parler appeared to register its domain with Epik web hosting, which also hosts Gab.

“Every day it changes wildly, but I feel confident now,” Matze said, according to the Fox News interview. “We’re making significant progress. When you go into Parler.com it doesn’t go into the void now, it hits a server, and it returns just one piece of information.”

Matze wrote in an update on the site that “now seems like the right time to remind you all—both lovers and haters—why we started this platform.”

“We believe privacy is paramount and free speech essential, especially on social media,” he remarked in his statement, dated Jan. 16. “Our aim has always been to provide a nonpartisan public square where individuals can enjoy and exercise their rights to both. We will resolve any challenge before us and plan to welcome all of you back soon. We will not let civil discourse perish!”

parler screenshot — A screenshot of Parler.com on Jan. 16, 2020. (Screenshot/Parler)

Matze told the broadcaster that he was able to recover Parler’s data from Amazon on Friday, Jan. 15, which is a key step in relaunching the platform. “Now we can actually rebuild Parler,” Matze explained. “It’s critically important.”

On Jan. 11, Parler filed a lawsuit against Amazon Web Services, saying that the firm should reinstate its services while saying Amazon engaged in monopolistic practices. Amazon, in a responding court filing, said Parler violated its terms and services by not moderating threats of violence and other allegedly egregious content, although Parler has since claimed a representative with Amazon appeared to be only concerned about whether President Donald Trump joined the social media website after Twitter and other big tech companies banned his accounts.

The Epoch Times reached out to AWS for comment on Sunday.

Matze added to Fox on Sunday that posting his brief message was a “big milestone” in getting the platform back online.

“We’re going to be putting periodic updates there,” Matze said “We’re going to try to get an update out every day… so that people can stay up to date with the site.”

Other than Amazon, Google and Apple removed Parler’s app from the firms’ respective app programs.

The move to suspend both Parler and Trump from various big tech services drew condemnation from civil liberties groups and conservatives, who have argued that it represents a slippery slope into more censorship.

Parler, which describes itself as a “free speech” social media website, drew a number of Trump supporters and other conservatives, including senators and House representatives. Following Trump’s Twitter ban, the website became the No. 1 app on various app stores before it was taken down.

Source: Parler CEO ‘Confident’ Platform Will Return by End of January