Guests - Lisa Von Geldern, Robert Bork Jr.
Election Updates and Legal Challenges
Arizona voters appear to be sending a strong message to Democrats ahead of the November 2024 general election, according to a recent voter registration report. Between January and April, Democrats lost 10,921 voters from their rolls statewide, failing to produce a net gain in any of Arizona's 15 counties. Republican registrations showed particular growth in rural counties, with Republicans gaining voters in 7 counties overall.
The Democratic losses were especially pronounced in Maricopa County, where they lost 5,121 voters, and in Pima County, where 2,555 voters are no longer registered as Democrats. This shift comes before the purging of rolls of individuals who may not be citizens.
Lisa Von Geldern, a guest on the program, highlighted related developments regarding election integrity. She referenced an article in the April 14th issue of The New American magazine about United Sovereign Americans, a group that evolved from New York Citizens Audit founded by Marley Hornick.
"They have been quietly working behind the scenes all this time since the 2020 election," Von Geldern explained. "They are suing over election fraud. They have done incredible analysis and it turns out that your state's highest official has to certify the election and they have to certify that it meets legal standards."
According to Von Geldern, United Sovereign Americans has raised over a million dollars to support legal challenges, arguing that when state officials sign certification forms, they are both legally and personally liable for any fraud in those elections. Their lawsuits are based on detailed analyses of election results in each state measured against the requirements in the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and the National Voter Rights Act (NIVRA).
"They are using the details in those laws and then they are using the actual election results in each state and they are doing an analysis against the laws and they are finding all kinds of fraud and flaws," Von Geldern said, citing examples such as states where more people voted than were registered.
The organization has apparently caused concern for Democratic election attorney Marc Elias, who Von Geldern claimed is "absolutely terrified that United Sovereign Americans is going to succeed in making elections lawful again."
Carbon Capture Pipelines: Environmental Solution or Land Grab?
Von Geldern also discussed a documentary film called "Unearthing the CO2 Pipeline" set to release on April 22nd. The film examines carbon capture and sequestration projects being implemented across the United States, including plans for Southern Arizona.
These initiatives, funded with billions from the Biden infrastructure bill, allow private companies to use eminent domain to establish carbon capture pipeline networks. Von Gelderen argued this represents a concerning misuse of eminent domain, which is traditionally reserved for public good projects rather than private enrichment.
"They have thousands and thousands, probably 100,000 miles of pipeline planned throughout the United States," Von Geldern said. The process involves capturing carbon either at industrial sources or directly from the air, liquefying it, and transporting it through underground pipelines.
Von Geldern expressed serious concerns about both the safety and true purpose of these pipelines. She cited a pipeline rupture in Satartia, Mississippi, where an 8-inch carbon pipeline broke after heavy rainfall, sending 45 people to the hospital.
"The planned pipelines are 24 inches," she warned, noting that carbon dioxide is heavier than air and that emergency vehicles couldn't reach affected people because "a combustion engine needs oxygen to run. And when it gets into a cloud of carbon dioxide, the engine stops running."
Beyond safety concerns, Von Geldern suggested the carbon capture initiative might be a pretext for other motives. She described an incident where a company called SUMMA Carbon Solutions allegedly trespassed on a South Dakota farm owned by Jared Bosley. According to Von Geldern, they drilled 90 holes 90 feet deep, supposedly for carbon sequestration purposes, but possibly prospecting for minerals.
"They're looking for minerals," Von Geldern claimed. "They're telling them that they want this for the carbon thing, but in fact, they're taking the land to search for minerals because there's foreign governments that want these."
Von Geldern encouraged listeners to watch the upcoming documentary at standyourground.watch, which will be available starting April 22nd and will be followed by a Q&A session with filmmaker Rebecca Carroll.
Meta vs. FTC: Antitrust Battle in the Tech World
Robert Bork Jr., president of the Antitrust Education Project, joined the program to discuss the blockbuster antitrust trial between Meta (formerly Facebook) and the Federal Trade Commission that kicked off earlier in the week.
The case, originally filed in 2020 during the Trump administration, alleges that Meta's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp years earlier were illegal and created a monopoly in social media. The government had previously reviewed these acquisitions when they occurred but took no action at the time.
"The government is really laying it on hard," Bork explained. "They're trying to prove that it was Meta's intention to stifle competition from Instagram by buying it."
Bork criticized the government's approach to defining the market in which Meta allegedly holds a monopoly. "When defining the market that they are alleging is monopolized by Meta/Facebook, they gerrymandered it much like politicians gerrymander congressional districts," he said. "They didn't include in their market TikTok or Mewe or YouTube or X."
According to Bork, when all competitors are properly considered, "the Meta share is less than 30%."
He further argued that Meta didn't simply acquire Instagram to eliminate competition: "It's not like they took, bought Instagram and said, let's go lock it in a closet so nobody can see it and we don't have to compete against it. But they did was invested in it, made it better and a powerful tool."
Bork expressed concern about the broader implications of the government's aggressive antitrust approach, especially as it applies to American tech companies while foreign competitors like TikTok receive different treatment.
"At the same time the government is trying to tear down this American company that's competing in the marketplace, they are violating the law about TikTok," Bork said, referring to extensions given to the Chinese-owned platform despite security concerns.
Bork predicted that while Meta might lose in district court, they would likely prevail at higher levels, potentially reaching the Supreme Court. He argued for a return to the "consumer welfare standard" in antitrust enforcement, an approach outlined in his father's influential 1978 book "The Antitrust Paradox," which was adopted by the Supreme Court in 1979.
"If the consumers benefit, then we're not going to break up mergers. We're not going to prosecute competitors or companies," Bork explained, contrasting this with what he sees as the current administration's approach.
Bork noted that U.S. District Judge James Bosberg, who is presiding over the Meta trial, has also ruled against Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan gang members, creating a complex political dynamic around the case.
The trial is expected to last approximately two months, during which the FTC will present evidence attempting to show that Meta's acquisitions were designed to eliminate competition rather than enhance its products and services.