SCOTUS Statement on Leak Investigation and Biden Statement on... Something

Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued the following statement:

Supreme Court – “Yesterday, a news organization published a copy of a draft opinion in a pending case. Justices circulate draft opinions internally as a routine and essential part of the Court’s confidential deliberative work. Although the document described in yesterday’s reports is authentic, it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., provided the following statement:

“To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. The work of the Court will not be affected in any way.

We at the Court are blessed to have a workforce – permanent employees and law clerks alike – intensely loyal to the institution and dedicated to the rule of law. Court employees have an exemplary and important tradition of respecting the confidentiality of the judicial process and upholding the trust of the Court. This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here.

I have directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak.” (LINK)

🜋

Earlier today, the installed occupant of the white house delivered impromptu remarks to the press concerning a leaked draft from a pending Supreme Court decision. He was not concerned at all that the unprecedented leak occurred. [Video and Transcript Below]

[Transcript] – Q What do you think of the ruling — or the draft that leaked, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: “Well, first of all, I just got a call saying that it’s been announced that it is a real draft, but it doesn’t represent who’s going to vote for it yet. I hope there are not enough votes for it.

It’s the main reason why I worked so hard to keep Robert Bork off the Court. It reflects his view almost — almost word — anyway.

Look, the idea that — it concerns me a great deal that we’re going to, after 50 years, decide a woman does not have a right to choose within the limits of the Supreme Court decision in Casey, number one.”

“But even more equally as profound is the rationale used. And it would mean that every other decision relating to the notion of privacy is thrown into question.

I realize this goes back a long way, but one of the debates I had with Robert Bork was whether — whether Griswold vs. Connecticut should stand as law.

The state of Connecticut said that the privacy of your bedroom — you — a husband and wife or a couple could not choose to use contraception; the use of contraception was a violation of the law.

If the rationale of the decision as released were to be sustained, a whole range of rights are in question — a whole range of rights. And the idea we’re letting the states make those decisions, localities make those decisions would be a fundamental shift in what we’ve done.

So, it goes far beyond — in my view, if it becomes a law and if what is written is what remains, it goes far beyond the concern of whether or not there is the right to choose. It goes to other basic rights: the right to marry, the right to determine a whole range of things. Because one of the issues that this Court — many of the members of the Court — a number of the members of the Court have not acknowledged is that there is a right to privacy in our Constitution.

I strongly believe there is. I think the decision in Griswold was correct overruling; I think the decision in Roe was correct, because there’s a right to privacy. There can be limitations on it, but it cannot be denied.

Q Do you think this leak has irreparably changed the Court?

THE PRESIDENT: Beg your pardon?

Q Do you think that this leak has irreparably changed the Court? We’ve never seen this happen before.

THE PRESIDENT: You know, if — if this decision holds, it’s really quite a radical decision.

And, again, the underlying premise — and, again, I’ve not had a chance to thoroughly go into the report — the decision. But it basically says all the decisions related to your private life — who you marry, whether or not you decide to conceive a child or not, whether or not you can have an abortion, a range of other decisions — whether or not — how you raise your child —

What does this do — and does this mean that in Florida they can decide they’re going to pass a law saying that same-sex marriage is not permissible, that it’s against the law in Florida?

And so, there’s a whole — it’s a fundamental shift in American jurisprudence if it were to hold.

Q Mr. President, should the Senate do away with the filibuster to codify Roe?

THE PRESIDENT: I’m not — I’m not prepared to make those judgments now about — but, you know, I think the codification of Roe makes a lot of sense.

Look, think what Roe says. Roe says what all basic mainstream religions have historically concluded — that the right — that the existence of a human life and being is a question. Is it at the moment of conception? Is it six months? Is it six weeks? Is it — is it quickening, like Aquinas argued?

I mean, so the idea that we’re going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child based on a decision by the Supreme Court, I think, goes way overboard.

Q What does this mean for the midterms? What does this mean for the Democrats’ argument in the midterms?

THE PRESIDENT: I haven’t thought that through yet.

Q Do changes need to be made to the Court in light of this, if this decision holds?

THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon?

Q Do changes need to be made to the Court in light of this, if this decision holds?

THE PRESIDENT: We have to choose — I mean, look, one of the reasons why I voted against a number of the members of the Court: They refuse to acknowledge that there’s a 9th Amendment. They refuse to acknowledge there’s a right to privacy.

I mean, there are so many fundamental rights that are affected by that. And I’m not allo- — I’m not prepared to leave that to the whims and the — and the — of the public at the moment in local areas.”

Thank you so much. (LINK)

Democrats Pounce, Call On Congress To Immediately Abolish Filibuster In Wake of SCOTUS Leak

Kira Davis reporting for RedState 

If you thought you were going to have a nice peaceful start to the week, think again. In a shocking development that is unfolding even as we write, someone has leaked information that SCOTUS may be preparing to overturn Roe v. Wade.

A leak like this is unprecedented, and some have surmised that it may well be a last-ditch effort for Democrats to motivate their base. Not such a crazy notion, as Monday night brought word that Democrats from across the country have already been calling for the elimination of the filibuster to help them protect the most sacred tenant of their faith – abortion.

The Hill reporter Julia Manchester shared a series of posts Monday evening that included breathless statements from varying Democrat politicians.

Mandela Barnes, Lt.Governor of Wisconsin and current candidate for U.S. Senate said:

It has never been more clear why we need to abolish the filibuster and take immediate action to protect every person’s right to make decisions about their own bodies. Republicans have proven they will stop at nothing to strip every individual of their right to an abortion. We must act now.

You’ll note he was careful not to be prejudicial in supposing that only women have abortions. Every INDIVIDUAL…of course.

Pennsylvania Lt. Governor John Fetterman had this to say:

Let’s be clear: the right to an abortion is sacred. Democrats have to act quickly and get rid of the filibuster to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act and finally codify Roe into law. We cannot afford to wait.

At least he was honest about his religion. The right to kill a baby is sacred to his party. It is better for everyone to be up front about their faith when it comes to politics.

Ohio representative Tim Ryan is a co-author of the “Women’s Health Protection Act” and issued this statement:

Overturning Roe v. Wade would be absolutely wrong, not to mention catastrophic for Ohio, where Republicans have passed one extreme and dangerous proposal after another to ban abortion – without exceptions even for rape, incest or medical emergencies – before most people even know they’re pregnant. We cannot sit back and allow the Supreme Court to gut Ohioans’ most fundamental rights. Control of the Senate has never been more important. It’s time to end the filibuster, pass the Women’s Health Protections Act, and fight like hell to make sure all Ohio families are free to make these critical decisions without interference from politicians in Columbus or Washington.

There he goes again with the whole “people” thing. Only women have babies. Only women have abortions. It’s quite interesting how the only time they want to refer to women is to pass an act enshrining abortion. Otherwise, women don’t exist in the pregnancy discussion.

RedState will continue covering this unprecedented story, and the insane reactions to the possibility that more babies might be born. Stay tuned.

The New York Times’ Pathetic Hit Job on Tucker Carlson Fails Miserably

Accuracy isn’t the point at America’s benighted “newspaper of record.”

by Carpe Diem for American Greatness

Last weekend, New York Times “political and investigative reporter” Nicholas Confessore disgorged more than 15,000 words in an effort to smear and vilify Fox News host Tucker Carlson and his viewers. Confessore’s real goal, obviously, was to terrify Carlson’s advertisers to withdraw from the highest-rated cable TV talk show in America. Carlson, Confessore and the Times want readers to think, is nothing more than a televangelist for “white nationalists.”

Confessore offers not just one but three absurdly long and profoundly idiotic pieces to his Carlson hit job. The first story will suffice to get the flavor. That’s where Confessore uses the word “racist” no fewer than 10 times to describe Carlson as a bigot who intentionally stokes “white resentment” for his more than 3 million viewers who are also supposedly “racist,” and probably smelly, and poorly educated, too.

This is the same newspaper that covered up the Holocaust, ignored Joseph Stalin’s manufactured famine that killed anywhere from 7-13 million people between 1932 and 1933 in Ukraine, and relentlessly smeared Ronald Reagan.

This is the same newspaper that accused Sarah Palin of being culpable for the 2011 shooting of U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords in Tucson, the same newspaper that won a Pulitzer Prize after spending two years falsely accusing Donald Trump of being a Russian agent, and the same newspaper that ignores and covers up Joe Biden’s family corruption, mental and physical incapacitation, and destruction of our country as he opens our border to millions of illegal aliens, undermines the energy industry, and blows up our economy with disastrous inflationary spending.

Still, wretched track record and all, the attacks against Carlson were vicious and completely unwarranted.

According to the Princeton-educated and Pulitzer Prize-winning Confessore, Carlson, “has constructed what may be the most racist show in the history of cable news—and also, by some measures, the most successful.”

Evidently, when someone who isn’t a left-winger happens to be successful and has a large following, it must be because that person is a white supremacist.

Along with “racist,” Confessore uses the phase “white nationalist” no fewer than 10 times in the first piece and suggests that Carlson “has adopted the rhetorical tropes and exotic fixations of white nationalists, who have watched gleefully from the fringes of public life as he popularizes their ideas.”

In other words, millions of people don’t tune in to Carlson’s program because he’s handsome, intelligent, hilarious, refuses to talk down to his audience, and has the courage to speak about issues other conservatives won’t touch. Oh no, it’s as simple as “racism sells.” Carlson is the white supremacist version of Ibram X. Kendi. 

But Confessore wasn’t finished with his brilliant analysis. (With all of those words, how could he be?) Carlson’s show, he writes, 

teaches loathing and fear. Night after night, hour by hour, Mr. Carlson warns his viewers that they inhabit a civilization under siege—by violent Black Lives Matter protesters in American cities, by diseased migrants from south of the border, by refugees importing alien cultures, and by tech companies and cultural elites who will silence them, or label them racist, if they complain . . . Amid nationwide outrage over George Floyd’s murder by a Minneapolis police officer, Mr. Carlson dismissed those protesting the killing as ‘criminal mobs.’

So according to Confessore’s crack investigatory work, all of those things he listed are just imagery grievances. There is no reason for Americans to deplore the 2020 BLM riots that left 2,000 police officers blinded or injured, more than two dozen people dead, and property damage that reached $2 billion—the most expensive in insurance history. It defies all reason that black business owners wouldn’t invite “fiery but mostly peaceful” protesters to incinerate their life’s work and investment. Of course they would want to defund the police! Justice demands it!

The crisis at the southern U.S. border must be a figment of Carlson’s imagination. Have hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens from more than 100 countries poured across the border every month since Joe Biden took office? Well, sure. But let’s pay no mind to the debate currently roiling the Democratic Party about the wisdom of ending Title 42, the COVID-era legislation that lets border officials immediately deport illegal aliens for health reasons. The old economic argument against unfettered immigration—an argument that certain Democrats embraced as recently as 2015—is simply “racism” now. There’s no longer any reason for white, blue-collar workers to worry about illegal labor depressing wages and straining public welfare systems. And, of course, illegal aliens never, ever break the law. 

At this point, you’re probably wondering where Confessore’s evidence is that Carlson is a racist. Well here it is: “Among the most frequent recurring characters on ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight,’” Confessore writes, “are Black politicians like the Democratic congresswomen Maxine Waters and Ilhan Omar and Vice President Kamala Harris, whom Mr. Carlson has portrayed, against the available evidence, as a kind of shadow president. He regularly disparages Black women as stupid or undeserving of their positions.”

Just so we’re clear, Maxine Waters is not a corrupt and embarrassing dolt who gives special favors to her husband, who once called for violence against Trump officials, made a fool of herself in front of CEOs of America’s largest banks, and who threatened more violence if jurors didn’t reach the “right verdict” in the Derek Chauvin trial. No, actually, Waters is a delightful, smart, and ethically sound public servant!

The same is true of Kamala Harris. She’s not a cackling, incoherent imbecile who speaks to her audience as if they have lower IQs than her own. She’s actually done an impeccable job with handling the border crisis, and dealing with Ukraine, combined with her vast knowledge of foreign policy. And no, don’t you dare believe for one second that she was picked for this job because of her skin color, even though that’s exactly what her decrepit boss told us, or that she’s advanced this far in her career because of her relationship with Willie Brown. No, according to Confessore, if you believe any of that, you’re racist and sexist and that’s all there is to it.  

And the same is true of Ilhan Omar. She’s not an ungrateful immigrant who bashes this country any chance she gets, or a raging anti-Semite. Like Watters and Harris, she is also warm and wonderful. Smear them and you’re a white supremacist. Got it?

For Confessore, Carlson’s greatest sin may be his refusal to accept the narrative that the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 was an “insurrection” and an assault on democracy. “Mr. Carlson has become the most visible and voluble defender of those who violently stormed the U.S. Capitol to keep Donald J. Trump in office, playing down the presence of white nationalists in the crowd and claiming the attack ‘barely rates as a footnote’ . . . Accuracy isn’t the point on ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight.’”

As American Greatness senior contributor Julie Kelly has documented here and on her frequent appearances on Carlson’s program, the only people who died on January 6 were unarmed Trump supporters—notably Ashli Babbitt, who was shot without warning at point blank range, and Rosanne Boyland, whose death the D.C. coroner ascribed to an Adderall overdose. Carlson has rudely pointed out the federal government’s double-standard in going easy on rioters who attacked and damaged federal courthouses in 2020 while keeping January 6 demonstrators charged with nonviolent offenses such as trespassing in solitary confinement ahead of their trials.

But accuracy isn’t the point at America’s benighted “newspaper of record.”

Fortunately, Tucker Carlson is not going anywhere.

On the Fringe, Red Pill News, and more- May 3rd

 

Primary day in Ohio and Indiana! Hopefully I'll have an article up later with the results.

Here's tonight's news:

Get Ready for an Actual War

If you don’t want another world war, a good way to help avoid it would be to stop waving another nation’s flag on Facebook.

by Dan Gelernter for American Greatness

Are we utterly deranged? Wasn’t a large portion of America inexorably against war just a few years ago? Have we so completely forgotten everything in the past 10 years and the past 100 years that we’re willing to call for “regime change” in one of the largest and most bellicose nations in the world? 

And yet a majority of the population is now busting out the Ukrainian flags when Joe Biden says that Russia’s Putin must go. What exactly do we think is going to happen now? Is anyone thinking?

Listen America, let me remind you of a few things: First, you don’t care at all about Ukraine. I’m willing to bet that most Americans couldn’t have picked it out on a blank map of Europe two months ago. I’ll even double the ante and bet that a majority of Americans still couldn’t pick it out on a blank map of Europe. And yet we’re willing to make this a holy casus belli?

Of course, my own instincts put me on the help-Ukraine bandwagon. After all, I have been telling literally anyone who would listen for the last 10 years (all two of them) that we were heading toward war with Russia. But my goal in warning about this was to find a way to avoid the war. If you’re one of those people who has put the Ukrainian flag on your Facebook profile pic (which probably means you also put the “I got vaccinated” frame on your profile pic) let me ask you this: Does it make you suspicious when our government and all of our media, including Fox News, unanimously tell you the same thing? Does it bother you at all when the two least-trusted institutions in the entire nation are reading from the same page, singing from the same hymnal, running the same playbook? No? 

“Wherever I went in Europe,” Albert Jay Nock wrote during World War II, “I was struck by the persistence of the old original idea that America, and especially the United States, has no reason for existence except as a milk cow for Europe . . . that America’s resources should at all times be at the disposal of Europe for Europe’s benefit. Especially it was imperative that when Europe got into any kind of scrape, America’s plain duty was to take the brunt of it, and to stand by when the scape was settled, and clean up the débris at American expense.”

Mind you, Nock wrote those words several years before the Marshall Plan was ever conceived, several years before we decided to spend the second half of the century paying for the blunders of the first half. What greater (and sadder) indictment can there be of the Allies’ behavior that the war began with the invasion of Poland and ended with Poland being given away to one of the original invaders? (Remember, Russia and Germany invaded Poland together when they were pals in 1939.) It’s easy to say—as everyone does—that giving Poland to Russia was necessary in order to end the war and have peace. But if you’re willing to give away a nation whose territory you promised to defend, then why bother with the war in the first place? 

This is not to suggest for an instant that it was wrong for us to fight and win the war. Only that the war itself could have been avoided completely, and we might ask ourselves why—with all of us so theoretically opposed to wars—it happened anyway. 

Nock, who died in 1945, was a fascinating man. He was one of the first men to call himself a libertarian. But if you check his Wikipedia page, you’ll find out that he was an anti-Semite. This fact alone intruiged me, because an accusation of anti-Semitism, like an accusation of racism or of sexism (but somehow even more insidious), is the best trick our culture has for making it impossible to quote someone’s work or discuss his ideas. Cancel culture—which many of those on the Right mock without actually opposing—is the concept that a single wrong should delete an entire life. One false move, and we must airbrush the culprit out of all our photos. (Bye bye, Will Smith!) For the record, Nock was not, in fact, an anti-Semite. But the claim has proved a convenient way to marginalize him. In 1943, he also wrote the following: 

At any time after 1936 it was evident that a European war would not be unwelcome to the Administration at Washington; largely as a means of diverting public attention from its flock of uncouth economic chickens on their way home to roost, but chiefly as a means of strengthening its malign grasp upon the country’s political and economic machine . . . Our Administration seemed to me to be in much the same situation as Mr. Asquith’s after 1911, and I expected it to act in the same way and for the same reasons; as in fact it did.

Nock predicted in 1935 that a new world war would start in the summer of 1939, not because Hitler was unstoppable in his evil schemes, but because the powers controlling public opinion and public expenditure in the West would also benefit from a war. Nock may be wrong, but this thesis is so awful in its implications that I suspect most of us would simply refuse to give it serious consideration. 

And if Nock was right, we are going to have another world war soon. 

Ask yourself: Would a diversion from poor economic conditions at home be of any help to professional politicians in Washington? How about an excuse for increasing government power? Just consider that the result of every war in modern history—in the winning nation—has been a transfer of social and economic power away from the people and toward the State: Higher taxes, more laws, more control over the daily lives of citizens. More government. That is what war does—when you win. And if you’re going to lose, who cares? 

Do I think that our government is really so evil and incompetent that they’d get us into a war just so they remain in power (and increase their power)? Of course I do. They won’t realize the magnitude of the war until it’s too late. As is traditional. 

I think that in four years we are going to be in a real war—a world war—against Russia and China. It will have been entirely unnecessary and avoidable, just like the first and second world wars. And it will be much worse than we imagine, because it is going to be fought with worse-than-nuclear weapons. We will face biological weapons, diseases that kill nine out of every 10 people they infect, rather than one in a 100,000. You’ll carry the disease around for two weeks without knowing, and two weeks later you’ll be dead. Two weeks after that, everyone you talked to will be dead. That’s the sort of thing that will happen in the next world war: After we lose our power and our internet and after the food supply-chain has been destroyed—after all that, expect bioweapons of horror-film-level malignancy. 

If you don’t want a world war—well, I frankly don’t know if we can still prevent it. But if you’d like to be helpful, I can only suggest the following: Stop waving another nation’s flag on Facebook like a thoughtless idiot.

 

Pathetic

Article by Jeannie DeAngelis in The American Thinker

 

Obama’s Fundamental Manipulation of Free Speech

Setting the stage for the DHS announcement of the Biden Administration’s Disinformation Governance Board recently, at a Stanford University Cyber Policy Center symposium entitled, “Challenges to Democracy in the Digital Information Realm,” deceptive mind-control specialist Barack Obama emerged from behind his Joe Biden mask to deliver the keynote speech. 

According to the anonymous author of the 2009 Department of Homeland Security treatise on “right-wing extremism,” government needs to help companies better “…recognize the often-dangerous relationship between social media, nationalism [and] domestic hate groups” like pro-lifers, ex-military, Second Amendment supporters, Christians, and America-First patriots.

Well aware that the voice of the people threatens the trajectory of the global elite agenda, the former president used the opportunity to double down on what he does best, which is to manipulate minds with clever word games. The stunning effort focused on convincing the naïve that government control of public discourse somehow strengthens “democracy.”

Attempting to persuade Americans that controlling free speech correlates with democratic non-complacency, Obama argued that limiting freedom “nurtures” democracy by instituting a policy that runs counter to freedom.  

Credit where credit is due, the former president is masterful at presenting nonexistent consensuses as if they truly exist. Take for instance his suggestion that questioning the 2020 election threatens “democratic ideals” and is tantamount to affiliation with Putin, while simultaneously inferring everyone agrees that the 2016 election was stolen from Hillary.

The Alinsky-mentee repeatedly portrayed American citizens as threats to the republic by juxtaposing extremes with divisive statements like:

People like Putin and Steve Bannon, for that matter, understand people don’t need to believe this information to weaken democratic institutions. You just have to flood a country’s public square with enough raw sewage. You just have to raise enough questions, spread enough dirt, and plant enough conspiracy theorizing that citizens no longer know what to believe.

So, in other words, democratic institutions will be strengthened when Barack Obama’s “raw sewage” answers all our questions and dictates what we must think and believe?

Amongst the trustworthy mix of oppressed freedom fighters, Barack presented himself, mainstream media shills, the government he’s likely coordinating, and then pointed out those he deems untrustworthy: anyone who causes Americans to distrust each other by disagreeing with his vision. 

Word to the wise, when the former self-proclaimed “target of disinformation,” Barack Obama, exonerates himself, the mainstream media, and political institutions, and then asks, “So where do we go from here?” freedom-loving Americans best listen up.

On behalf of a perverted definition of “democracy,” and sounding like a recruitment ad for “Public Enlightenment,” the former community organizer attempted to rally “the tech community, not just its corporate leaders, but employees at every level have to be part of the solution” to “push,” i.e., “nudge” employers to submit to Communist Command and Control.The former president depicted dictatorial control freaks as global uniters and feigned a desire for unity by stirring suspicions of voter suppression in black and brown communities, mentioning racism, white supremacism, Putin-like ethnonationalism, “sexism, class conflict, religious strife, greed, envy, and all the deadly sins.” Exempting himself from the division he cultivates, according to Obama, muzzling opposing opinions will “help tamp down divisions and let us rebuild the trust and solidarity needed to make our democracy stronger.” 

Convincing the credulous that he is a supporter of free speech and in favor of a “free, robust, sometimes antagonistic exchange of ideas,” Obama stressed that democratic ideals will be realized when the news media, and private companies like Facebook and Twitter, submit to the proposed management of a product that -- when it disagrees with him -- disseminates what Obama calls “toxic information.” Seven months before a midterm election, the former president insisted that “while content moderation can limit the distribution of clearly dangerous content, it doesn’t go far enough.” Therefore, “these big platforms need to be subject to some level of public oversight and regulation” that surely he will be closely involved in overseeing.

Imagine this, Obama proposed that government monitoring of algorithms “spurs innovation,” and eliminates competition for communities of color, because in the end, despite “extraordinarily good faith in some cases,” deplatforming and canceling the left’s detractors is simply not enough to “keep the rest of us safe.” Say what?

With that in mind, let’s review: COVID vaccines (that he mistakenly admitted were clinically tested on “billions”) “keep us safe,” Anthony Fauci’s masked edicts “keep us safe,” mail-in ballots “keep us safe,” Democrat poll watchers “keep us safe,” gun-control crackdowns “keep us safe,” and now, government regulation of free speech, will also “keep us safe.”  

Shrewdly, Obama protested too much when he asserted that he’s certainly not suggesting that fairness exclude “views diametrically opposed” to his own, or that opinions and divisions be “fixed.” Oh, no, no, no! Instead, he said that there could be an effort to fundamentally transform or “redesign” and “broaden our perspectives” by mimicking “hard core Hannity, Carlson fans,” being successfully brainwashed by exclusive exposure to CNN, which, according to Obama, has the potential to change “perspectives.” Put another way, does Obama think viewing FOX ‘unmeaningful,’ and singular exposure to CNN helpful in safeguarding his idea of “democracy” by “reshaping” political opinion in “meaningful ways?” 

Is that why, Obama believes that the “common baseline of how we debate and sort out our disagreements,” would be better managed by the governance of a First Amendment dictated to by ideologies that agree with the left’s definition of what a demon like Barack Obama calls, “better angels?” Or that efforts to preserve democracy must include kids being taught to become “critical thinkers” by limiting exposure to differing opinions on things like climate change, sexuality, COVID vaccines, Putin, elections, and January 6th?

Wanting to curtail free speech from the beginning, Obama even managed to squeeze in a backhanded criticism of the “flawed” U.S. Constitution by insinuating that undermining the First Amendment fosters a “more perfect union” and likened government regulation of free speech to amendments abolishing slavery, and granting women the right to vote. 

Obama, the controlling “tool” of the global elite, ended this alarming address by saying:

[a]t the end of the day, tools don’t control us. We control them, and we can remake them. It’s up to each of us to decide what we value and then use the tools we’ve been given to advance those values. And I believe we should use every tool at our disposal to secure our greatest gift: a government of, by, for the people, for generations to come. 

By defining the voice of the people as a “steady stream of bile and vitriol,” Obama’s attempt at implied consensus, again attempted to convert Americans to “fight for [his] truth and to pick [his] side,” or chance being branded -- “for generations to come” -- as responsible for “allow[ing] our democracy to wither.”

 https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/05/obamas_fundamental_manipulation_of_free_speech.html

 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

Elon Musk Talks Twitter Changes but Leaves Room for Serious Concern

Bonchie reporting for RedState 

Though you probably weren’t even aware because you have better things to focus on, multitudes of rich and famous people gathered in New York City on Monday evening for the annual Met Gala. In one of the more obscene cultural spectacles, those with way too much money and ego do their best to look absurd and flaunt their arrogance.

Last year, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez showed up in a dress that read “Tax the Rich” while having her own team of servants. That clocked in as one of the more ironic and nonsensical moments in recent political history.

Regardless, Elon Musk was at this year’s event, and he was asked about where he sees Twitter going after his purchase.

Those all seem like perfectly reasonable things to strive for. Right now, Twitter is not inclusive in the sense that the rules are highly subjective and are selectively enforced. If you are a liberal, you can say all sorts of vile things and rarely elicit any punishment. But if you are a conservative who says a man can’t be a woman, that’s an automatic ban if you are popular enough to draw the attention of the censors.

The biggest change that could be made to Twitter would simply be applying the rules equally. That seems to be what Musk wants to do, and it’s a good thing. It will also lead to fulfilling his second hope, which is to make the platform entertaining, interesting, and funny.

Still, there’s one thing he said that should cause serious concern. If you watch the video, he qualifies his comments by noting that he wants to do those things “assuming everything gets done.” That pretty clearly indicates that this thing isn’t actually finalized yet. Perhaps financing could fall through, but more worrisome is the possibility that the Twitter board could back out somehow. We know that on Musk’s end, he can back out for the cost of $1 billion. You’d think that applies the other way as well.

Hopefully, he’s just being overly cautious. If you aren’t on Twitter, you’ve missed out on a wild last few weeks. Lots of old accounts have returned, people are speaking more freely, and the site as a whole is just better. To see the rug pulled out from under everyone would be terrible, not just because we might see fewer choice memes, but because social media plays a vital role in our political battles. Musk taking over Twitter is going to be a boon for conservative politics and the dissemination of information.

It’d be a big letdown to have come this far only to see the far-left return to its position of power. In the meantime, though, I’m going to remain optimistic. Musk always seems like a man with a plan, and I don’t think he’s looking to flush money down the toilet here. The deal is still likely to go through.