Thursday, May 9, 2024

Will the Supreme Court Let This Crisis Go to Waste?


Has the Supreme Court noticed that we’ve crossed a legal Rubicon?  The Constitution — that thing the Court is supposed to defend — is becoming less relevant by the day because the left has decided that our mutual pact of self-governance doesn’t apply to leftists.  They have weaponized our government against us — using it to surveil, silence, harass, and steal from us.  Our own government is even arguing that the Constitution should not be a constraint on its operations — which is precisely what its purpose is.

Are the Supreme Court Justices beginning to realize that we are in crisis?  Two recent cases indicate that they are awakening to that reality.

In Fischer v. United States, the court is considering the validity of using a financial statute to charge January 6 trespassers with obstruction of an official proceeding.  During questioning, Justice Gorsuch asked, “Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?”  He was referring to Democrat Jamaal Bowman, who pulled a fire alarm to prevent a congressional vote yet was not charged with “obstructing an official proceeding.”  That was Gorsuch’s way of asking if something other than party affiliation determines who will face the greater jeopardy of obstruction charges.  It was a sarcastic illustration of the decidedly unequal system of justice the DoJ is currently practicing.

In Trump v. United States, the Court is considering whether Donald Trump has immunity for actions taken while he was president.  The DoJ argued that the motive for presidential actions should determine whether immunity applies and that the discretion and good motivations of DoJ attorneys should be trusted to make that determination (try not to laugh).  Justice Alito questioned the wisdom of that argument, asking if the DoJ should be trusted, “given its history of abusive partisan prosecution.”  That is about as close as a Supreme Court justice will ever come to telling a government solicitor general that the latter has squandered his last ounce of credibility.

It appears that the Supreme Court justices are becoming aware that our justice system is now a tangle of broken constitutional promises and inconsistent legal decisions.  But do they realize that they helped create this mess?

When pundits complained about inconsistent decisions from the courts, and the obvious political biases at play, Chief Justice Roberts responded,

We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.  What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.

Roberts was ignoring the early warning signs that a cancer was destroying our republic and advising the public to “ignore the lump, it’s nothing.”  But it’s not “nothing.”  Our republic was being eaten away by a malignant leftist tumor.  Roberts wishing it were otherwise didn’t make it otherwise.

When Democrat party operatives used hoaxes to attack a president and a nominee for the Supreme Court (Brett Kavanaugh), the justices should have realized the extent of our problem.  But as the election of 2020 approached, they seemed determined to continue “business as usual.”

When state election officials used the 2020 pandemic as justification to change election rules, several organizations filed lawsuits claiming that only the state legislatures are constitutionally authorized to make such changes.  But the Supreme Court declined to hear the cases.  Since the election hadn’t happened yet, nobody had been harmed; hence, there were no damages to be adjudicated.

After the election, in which an unprecedented number of irregularities occurred, Texas (and several other states) petitioned the Supreme Court to adjudicate the issues.  But the court ruled that since the irregularities hadn’t occurred in Texas, citizens of Texas were not harmed, and the state therefore lacked standing to file suit.

When audits of the election began to reveal problems, organizations again asked the Court to engage.  But the Supreme Court declined again, simply saying that the election had been certified, and the arguments were therefore moot.

I’m sure the justices thought they were being prudent and were protecting the reputation of the Court by staying as far away from a controversial election as possible.  If so, they placed protection of the Court over protection of the Court’s source of authority — the Constitution.  It was shortsighted — as we see in hindsight.

Avoiding the problems of 2020 only created much bigger trouble for 2024.  According to Rasmussen Reports, 1 in 5 people who voted by mail in 2020 admit to cheating.  Now few Americans trust our elections.

A lack of legitimacy didn’t stop the Democrats from working toward political hegemony.  The Democrats used their control of the Legislative and Executive Branches to attempt “fundamental transformation” of all three branches of government.  They came within two Senate votes of changing the nature of our government for decades — if not forever.  Had Senators Manchin and Sinema not balked, the Dems would have packed the Supreme Court, added two liberal states to the Union, and nationalized elections.

During all of this, the Supreme Court’s power to stand against “fundamental transformation” was waning.  When the Court attempted to constrain Executive overreach (i.e., student loan forgiveness), the president simply ignored it.  Democrat strategists are even arguing that “Popular Constitutionalism” is a legitimate way to interpret the Constitution.  They insist that the president has the authority to interpret the Constitution and may read into it whatever he wishes.  They say the president can decide that the Dobbsdecision was incorrect and declare that the Constitution provides an inalienable right to abortion.  “Popular Constitutionalism” is a giant red light that if the justices stay out of our current political civil war, the Court may become its first casualty.

We are at a constitutional cliff.  The Court aided our descent into banana republic status when it chose restraint over aggressive defense of the Constitution.  Should the Democrats consolidate control over the government in the next election, there is nothing in their behavior arguing that they will refrain from:

  • adding four leftist senators,
  • packing the Supreme Court with leftist finders of penumbras and emanations,
  • arresting their political and ideological adversaries,
  • ignoring all limitations imposed by the Constitution, and
  • rendering the Supreme Court irrelevant for all time.

The Supreme Court needs to make radical course corrections now, because it failed to make minor adjustments when it would have mattered.

The Court’s desire to exercise restraint is an admirable judicial philosophy — in a well functioning republic.  When a car is running well, minor maintenance is the only appropriate action.  But when the car is on fire, it doesn’t need an oil change.  It needs emergency action.

Do the Supremes realize that the leftists have set our republic on fire?  The Court needs to stop looking for excuses for restraint and start looking for opportunities to stop the advance of tyranny.  This is the time for bold action — or after November there may be nothing left to defend but ashes.  They need to consider that as they deliberate on the cases before them.



at

X22, On the Fringe, and more- May 9

 




at

That '70s Show -- Is Biden Taking America Back to the Age of Jimmy Carter?


Everything that is happening in our fractured nation today seems so worrisomely reminiscent of America's last lost decade -- the 1970s.

For those who don't remember, the late 1970s under part-time President Gerald Ford and then much worse under President Jimmy Carter was one economic and national security setback after another.

The witches' brew of high inflation of 7% to 10% by 1979 and ever-increasing tax rates -- which rose as high as 70% -- drove the economy into a ditch. Real family incomes cratered under Carter because inflation rose so much faster than family take-home pay. Homes became unaffordable, with interest rates on mortgages skyrocketing up to 17%. Gas prices tripled. Carter blamed "Big Oil" and "invested" in pipe-dream green energy alternatives that all went bankrupt.

Every time inflation rose, the economic whiz kids in Washington assured us the high prices were just temporary. (They didn't use the term "transitory.") When prices kept rising, Carter blamed corporate greed and installed price controls and windfall profits taxes -- which only made problems worse.

On college campuses, we saw student protesters occupying the offices of the college presidents. Race riots turned our inner cities into powder kegs.

Because America was so weak at home, our enemies abroad capitalized as Soviet tanks rolled into Afghanistan and troops into Nicaragua, while Iran held Americans hostage.

Federal spending and debt soared, and the private sector started shrinking.

Carter's response to the bad news was to point at the American people and lecture us to turn down the thermostat, put on a sweater, and learn to live with less. But even he didn't threaten to abolish air conditioning and gas heat.

The new term that slid into the American lexicon was "stagflation." This was the combination of high prices and sluggish economic growth.

Does any of this sound familiar?

President Joe Biden's prescription for the U.S. economy isn't to reverse course. It is Carterism on steroids. More price controls, higher taxes on the rich and businesses, and another $2 trillion in spending on programs like student loan "forgiveness," green energy subsidies and mortgage relief programs.

The tax rate on investment would soar well above 50%. As former Trump economist Larry Kudlow has put it, "Biden thinks he can tax America into prosperity."

On energy policy, he's doubling down on his commitment to "net zero" fossil fuel production, and will command people to buy $70,000 electric vehicles made in China.

When the vast majority of Americans say they are financially worse off, he doesn't feel their pain. He shames them for not appreciating the wonderful things he's done and the virtues of Bidenomics.

That message is a little tone-deaf given that Americans are worried about '70s-style stagflation making a comeback. Inflation is trending back up at the same time GDP growth has slowed to a 1.6% trickle.

The Biden response is Americans are unappreciative, and we are all selfish for not wanting to live with less and give up our gas stoves and SUVs in order to save the planet.

In his infamous "malaise speech" in the summer of 1979, Carter spoke of a national "crisis of confidence" and lectured Americans about too much "self-indulgence" and learning to consume less and conserve more. He even talked about "threats to democracy." Instead of inspiring the nation, he put the country in a funk.

Just like Jimmy Carter then, Joe Biden is offering four more years of austerity and sacrifice and bigger, more intrusive government. That platform won the incumbent Carter 41% of the vote in 1980.



at

This Has Never Been About Justice


This Stormy Daniels dog-and-pony trial show in New York City, this circus clown exhibition of buffoonery, this utter sewage display, and total mockery of jurisprudence...folks, I hope we realize that this whole episode has never been about justice.  Justice doesn’t act like this and has absolutely nothing to do with it.  Alvin Bragg, an attorney general who is probably less qualified than I am, the obviously Democratic Party sycophant of a judge, Juan Merchan, the prosecutor who was a Democratic Party mogul...justice?  That word isn’t the first one that should come to anybody’s mind.

Political power is the obvious game here, an attempt to degrade Donald Trump in the eyes of as many Americans as possible, to destroy him, to belittle him politically so that the Democratic Party can win this year’s election.  It is nothing but a major, THE major, part of the Democrats’ 2024 campaign strategy.  I mean, if you were a Democratic Party tactician, trying to figure out how to get Joe Biden elected again in November, how would you go about it?  Would you make plans to defend Biden’s performance and record as President?  What would you suggest?  A “low unemployment rate”?  That isn’t going to cut it with people who can’t afford to buy gas or groceries.  “Well, he defended ‘Trans Visibility Day’ on Easter Sunday.”   They might want to shelve that one.  Ukraine?  Yeah, that will win him a lot of votes from the people who think it’s a New York City borough.  Is he pinning his hopes on abortion?  Victory by death?  I hope America isn’t that far gone yet.  

Joe Biden has been the worst President in American history.  The country has gone noticeably downhill—noticeable to anyone who isn’t an over-the-hill Hollywood actor or drunken suburban wine-guzzling divorcee or licentious sexual deviant.  That bottom-feeding class will vote for Biden, but hopefully isn’t most of the country yet.  

So, what do you, the Democratic Party strategist, do?  You do the only thing left—you try to destroy his opponent.  “Yeah, our guy is bad, but the other guy is worse.”  That’s it.  That is, 100%, the Democratic Party’s campaign plan this year.  And Bragg and Merchan are playing their roles like Academy Award winners.  

So, the whole trial scam is political.  It always has been.  That isn’t exactly news, is it?  The sky is blue.  The grass is green.  Kamala Harris cackles.  Whatever other obvious truism you want to use.

Now, I know you may be scratching your head thinking, “Lewis, we all know this.  Why are you wasting our time stating what every decent, intelligent American already knows?”  Well, apparently, some don’t, even some conservatives.  What set me off was reading a tweet from a very famous conservative who wrote about Stormy Daniels’ testimony being “grounds for a mistrial,” that “Merchan thinks they’ve humiliated Trump,” but actually “they’ve really humiliated themselves and debased the entire New York judicial system.”  

Well, duh.  As if Bragg, Merchan, etc. care about the fools they are making of themselves.  That tweet sounded like this very intelligent conservative person, whom I happen to like very much, is taking this trial seriously, as in it being a proper judicial procedure that was intended to discover the truth, be impartial, and do justice.  I can’t believe that any “conservative” would write from the perspective that this trial was envisioned to have any credibility at all.  That was never its purpose; its total aim is to finish Donald Trump, to win political points for the Democratic Party, to be a major cog in their scheme to get Joe Biden re-elected.  That is all it is about.  There is absolutely nothing serious—judicially—about this trial.  It is totally political.  Bragg, Merchan, the whole Democratic Party prosecutorial team are playing to the gullibility of the jury and hoping there are enough dumb Americans out there to think this is a fair trial, and that if Trump is convicted, he should go to jail and not be President.  And they may succeed.  It’s a unique campaign strategy that has never been attempted before in American history.  But desperate times, desperate measures.

They WILL get some convictions of Trump.  Of that, there is absolutely no doubt.  The only question is, will the American people buy it, or will they see through this obviously transparent political ploy by the Democrats?  

But, if you were trying to get Joe Biden elected to a second term as President, what would YOU do?  

History shows us that 40% of Americans are going to vote for the Democratic Party’s candidate, it doesn’t matter who, or what, it is.  40% will vote Republican; that’s history.  Read about it here.  The problem is, and the group the Democrats are trying to convince, is that 20% in the middle who will elect the next President.  Polls right now indicate that Mr. Biden is very unpopular; he doesn’t even reach 40% in some polls.  Not even all Democrats like him.  He is in serious trouble.  What can the Democrats do?  

Well, what they are struggling to do is persuade the nation that the Republicans are on schedule to nominate another Richard Nixon—another crook.  Mike Johnson isn’t going to let the House broadcast that Joe Biden is a worse crook than Donald Trump ever thought about being, so the Democrats have the Speaker of the House helping them.  Not many Americans would vote for a Richard Nixon today.

But that's all the Democrats have got now.  I hope enough Americans, and especially conservatives, wake up to the totally political nature of these trials against Trump and quit taking them seriously as part of a legitimate judicial process that demands a “mistrial.”  “Mistrial?”  They never should have started in the first place.  They need to be exposed for the utterly traitorous, anti-American tyranny that they are.



at

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓


Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share memes, cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


at

Trump Finds Brilliant Way to Sidestep Judge Merchan's Unconstitutional Gag Order

Sarah Arnold reporting for Townhall 

Former President Donald Trump found a brilliant way to throw Judge Juan Merchan’s gag order back at him after saying he would consider jail time for the 2024 hopeful, should he violate it. 

The corrupt New York judge threatened to throw Trump in jail after claiming he violated a gag order for the 10th time on April 22 when he commented on the political composition of the jury.

“That jury was picked so fast — 95 percent Democrats. The area's mostly all Democrat," Trump said in an interview. ”It's a very unfair situation, that I can tell you.”

However, after leaving a Manhattan courthouse this week, Trump carefully sidestepped Merchan’s orders by using the left's own words against them in regards to his hush money trial. 

While addressing the press, Trump pulled out a piece of paper and read quotes from CNN, Good Morning America, NBC, and other left-leaning outlets on what they are saying about the case. 

Merchan claimed that Trump’s comments "not only called into question the integrity, and therefore the legitimacy of these proceedings but again raised the specter of fear for the safety of the jurors and of their loved ones.”

In response to the left-wing judge’s threat, Trump insisted that despite facing jail time, expressing his constitutional rights was more important to him. 

“Our Constitution is much more important than jail. It's not even close. I'll do that sacrifice any day," he said. 

Quoting the American Founding Father Patrick Henry, Trump wrote “Give me liberty or give me death," on Truth Social. 

“It is a really bad feeling to have your Constitutional Right to Free Speech, such a big part of life in our Country, so unfairly taken from you, especially when all of the sleazebags, lowlifes, and grifters that you oppose are allowed to say absolutely anything that they want," Trump continued. "It is hard to sit back and listen to lies and false statements be made against you knowing that if you respond, even in the most modest fashion, you are told by a Corrupt and Highly Conflicted Judge that you will be put in prison, maybe for a long period of time."

Trump hit back against the “thugs” attacking the Republican Party, calling on the nation’s “First Amendment must stand, free and strong.” 



at

Seems Odd That Democrats Still Don’t Get This About Trump


The sham trial in the so-called “hush money” case against Donald Trump really has Democrats excited. This probably isn’t the best analogy, but it works: they seem to think THIS will finally be the thing that takes down Trump, like everyone in a Halloween movie thinks whatever blow they land will be what stops Michael Meyers. They’re all always wrong. In the movies they’re wrong because there’s money to be made in a sequel, with Trump they’re always wrong because they simply cannot understand the basics about the man and his supporters.

Democrats genuinely seem to think they can somehow turn Trump’s supporters against him somehow. They’ve tried everything, and they keep trying. Nothing works.

They’ve called the former President corrupt, despite the fact that he’s quite possibly, thanks to the intervention of the left, the only person in the last at least 50 years to be poorer when they left the White House than when they entered it. They’ve called him a tool of foreign powers, despite the fact that he held those foreign powers in check, denying them what they wanted and hitting them with tariffs when they tried anything not in our interests. They called him a “threat to democracy,” as they scramble to make up laws to charge him with and fight to keep him off various state ballots. 

Democrats either have no sense of irony or no sense of self-awareness.

With all these Lawfare actions, Democrats are hoping for one simple thing: something that sticks. 

With E. Jean Carroll case they thought they had it – they got a huge civil judgement against him. People didn’t care. The idea of an assault happening so long ago the “victim” can’t even remember the year, she jokes about rape with Anderson Cooper, but was so mortified when Trump called her a couple of names (which there’s no way on Earth she hasn’t been called a thousand times before) is beyond stupid. Like I said, no one cared and no one should.

With the scam case involving “lying” on loan applications, no one cares about that either. I saw this on Twitter the other day from a bunch of people that puts the whole case in perspective: the judge in the case value Mar-A-Lago at 34 Hunter Biden paintings. That’s really all you need to know, and all people will remember. Well, that and the massive bond Trump had to post so the pile of excrement Attorney General of New York didn’t seize his properties. 

The garbage with the classified documents isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, as the prosecutor now admits to mishandling the very classified evidence in this case. It’s beyond stupid. Add in how Biden did even worse, and did so for years, and it just does no resonate with people in the way Democrats had hoped. 

The “election interference” case in Georgia is a joke, with the District Attorney’s office seeming more like an OnlyFans hub than anywhere serious legal minds might work. 

That leave Stormy Daniels. The best Democrats have for hanging a conviction on Trump for anything before the election hinges on the word of a woman who has previously sworn she never had sex with him. A woman who took a lot of money to never talk about it again, he claims she “just wants to get her story out there.” The opposite of which is why she took the money.

That’s not even the point of the case, it’s an accounting argument made up specifically for this case, based on an alleged violation of another law the prosecutor won’t name. You can’t make this up, but if you did it would be more coherent than this crap.

Ultimately, people won’t care about this either. 

I don’t know if Trump had sex with Stormy, all I know is I don’t care. Trump isn’t running for Pope and doesn’t pretend to be anything he’s not. Everyone who supports him knows this. Everyone who hates him knows this, as much as they don’t want to acknowledge it. The idea that voters will care is absurd. 

Still, Democrats think this could, might, maybe finally drive a wedge between Trump and his supporters. It won’t. Even non-supporters recognize Trump has been a playboy in the past – the guy has bragged about it – and don’t care. You can have a guy who proclaims himself to be a “devout” Catholic who seems to desperately love abortions and mutilating the genitals of children while passively embracing the hatred of Jews, or you can have a guy who may or may not have had sex with a woman who was attractive at the time and be able to afford groceries, gas and your rent or mortgage. 

That’s what Democrats will not allow themselves to understand. Which do you think will win that argument? 



at

Biden's Non-Answer on Impeachable Act Is, Itself, an Answer


There have been reports that the U.S. has halted some of its arms shipments to Israel right as Israel was going into Rafah to wipe out Hamas. This was also as the U.S. was reportedly involved in trying to push a ceasefire deal with Hamas, the scope of which Israeli officials said the U.S. hadn't told them about before Hamas came out and said there was a deal. So it looks like, if these reports are true, the Biden team was blindsiding Israel and then also trying to force them into a ceasefire deal without telling them all the ramifications of it and withholding weapons. But that blew up because there was no deal. 


But the White House isn't talking when media has asked them about holding back arms shipments. 

Here's National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby. 


Then there was White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. 


She claimed they never comment about specific cases. That's nonsensical, although sort of true — she never gives a straight answer about "specific cases" or much of anything else, for that matter. But if you accept that as an answer why bother to even have her there at all? But she claimed their commitment to Israel was "ironclad." 

Then there was Joe Biden on Wednesday. When the media asked him about the shipments, all they got was a goofy look as he shuffled off to Marine One on the way to Wisconsin. 


They just surrounded him again and walked him to Marine One. 

But not answering is a kind of answer, isn't it? And how ridiculous their game-playing is here, trying to prevent media from getting answers from Biden by standing in between. 

If they had any credible answer or excuse they would have come out with it. Heck, even if they didn't have one, it's Joe Biden; he would have made something up. But they're not talking, so you know the answer. 

Their "ironclad" support for Israel is a bit like their claim that "the border is secure" — what they say doesn't match the facts. That's incredible that right at the moment that Israel is about to wipe out Hamas, Biden pulls the switch to get in the way. But that's sending a message to the enemy as well — to keep holding out and fighting because Biden will keep folding like a cheap camera. So Biden is emboldening Hamas with these ridiculous efforts to appease them. 

But it's also raising questions from many about whether his actions are impeachable, given that Congress approved the aid and in light of what the Democrats pushed with the impeachment of former President Donald Trump over Ukraine aid. 


But the Biden team thought that they could just avoid the question. 

Now, members of Congress are demanding answers.

Senators Joni Ernst (R., Iowa) and Ted Budd (R., N.C.), in a letter sent Monday evening to the White House, are asking the administration to immediately inform Congress about what types of ammunition are being withheld from Israel and why. The pause in these ammo shipments was approved last week, but only became publicly known over the weekend when the decision was leaked to Axios. 

The Biden team isn't going to be able to skate without answering this one. But watch them run at the mouth to explain how they should not incur any impeachment action over this because it's so "different." 



at

Panama Papers Law Firm Boss Ramon Fonseca Dead

 

Panamanian lawyer Ramon Fonseca, one of the heads of the now-defunct law firm Mossack Fonseca that was at the epicenter of the global "Panama Papers" scandal, died while awaiting sentencing in his money-laundering trial, his lawyer said Thursday.

During the night Fonseca "died while hospitalized", a member of his legal team told AFP, adding that the health concerns were "why he did not attend the trial" that opened on April 8.

No further details were given about the cause of death of Fonseca, 71, who died in hospital in Panama City.   


Documents leaked from Mossack Fonseca, which were published in 2016, revealed how many of the world's wealthy stashed assets in offshore companies, triggering scores of investigations around the globe.

Prosecutors had requested a sentence of 12 years in prison for the firm's two founders, Fonseca and his colleague Jurgen Mossack, whose money-laundering hearing ended on April 19.

The pair were on trial alongside more than two dozen others, mainly former employees. Fonseca did not attend the hearings.   


The prosecution accused Mossack and Fonseca of "concealing, covering up and providing false information to banks for the opening of accounts and concealing ownership of assets."

The pair was also alleged to have "received and transferred funds from illicit activities in Germany and Argentina."

The trove of 11.5 million leaked files implicated influential figures including billionaires, politicians and sports stars.

Many of those caught up in the scandal put forward reasons to explain their offshore presence and said they did not act illegally.  


Even so, Mossack Fonseca said in 2018 that it would close due to "irreparable damage" to its reputation.    




https://www.barrons.com/news/panama-papers-law-firm-boss-ramon-fonseca-dead-lawyer-ef1cc300 

at

Your Ability to Remain Free Rests in Your Willingness to Win the Information War



posted by Brandon Morse at RedState 

The "silent majority" is a concept that I think people talk about when they want to feel like they're more powerful than they feel at the moment. To be sure, the silent majority exists, but if I'm being honest, it's too often used as a way to soothe our worries. It's a story we tell ourselves to make us feel like everything will be okay in the end. 

The suggestion is that the American populace is a sleeping giant ready to awaken at any moment and set everything right. The trouble is that the giant is absolutely no worry to anyone if it simply stays asleep. Right now, that giant is definitely asleep. 

We can conclude that because evil is having its way with the world right now. While there are victories won here and there to hold back the tide, the march forward is happening steadily. The victories today either come because of the bravery of a few or, as is often the case, the incompetence of those willing to do evil. 

Keep in mind, a lot of the reason the giant sleeps and the silent majority is quiet isn't because it's lazy. A huge part of the problem is that the giant doesn't know it needs to awaken. Sure there are rumblings here and there and things are definitely heading south in America, but if we're being honest, America has always followed the law of undulation. Yes, things aren't looking good, but an election is coming up and we've fooled ourselves into thinking that a new guy in charge will fix the problem. 

Yeah, it'll improve things a bit, but even if the economy does come roaring back, the border is closed, illegals deported, and our taxes lowered, it'll still be a temporary measure. Eventually, people will be lulled into a sense of complacency and incompetency and evil will creep back into the system, pulling us back down into darker times. 

While the law of undulation is absolute, it doesn't have to be this bad. 

Why are the bad times getting so bad? 

Because it's never been easier or more rewarding to lie, and on top of that, it's never been easier to stop the truth from getting out. 

The sad truth is that it's not a conspiracy theory to say that there is a coordinated effort to spread lies by governments and corporations. The Twitter Files showed they're happy to work together to protect whatever narrative is helping them maintain the most control and raking in the most cash. 

As reported by Reclaim the Net, Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski, investigative journalist Michael Shellenberger, and Brazilian investigative journalist Paulo Figueiredo all testified to Congress regarding Brazil's attempts at censoring free speech and how their demands are edging their way into how America's platforms operate. 

It was during this hearing that some profound things were said that point to how these censorship efforts have been so successful. 

“The global escalation of censorship wouldn’t be possible without a complicit press abandoning its role as democracy’s guardian to become an instrument of ideology and partisan politics,” Figueiredo said. 

“The gradual erosion of freedoms and the concentration of power in the hands of a few are warning signs that must be taken seriously, as the fate of our nation is at stake,” he later added.

Pavolovski, who has rejected all calls for censorship by foreign governments, put the onus of protecting free speech on the United States: 

He concluded his opening remarks by criticizing the US for failing to defend freedom of speech and protect American businesses that attempt to uphold this right in Brazil and urged America to “step up and take a leading role” to combat the “out of control” censorship demands from foreign countries.

“Every totalitarian regime that has crushed the rights of individuals, has sought to control what people can say and hear,” Pavlovski warned. “It’s never the good guys doing the censoring. If the United States won’t stand up for freedom of speech – who will?”

Two points that were made very well. The first is that we have a press that isn't reporting the news, but a narrative. The other point is that the narrative is surviving because the United States isn't doing its job of protecting free speech in the land of the free. In fact, it's too often been complicit in censorship or the ones doing all the censoring. 

Some things need to change, and they need to change yesterday. 

Firstly, the U.S. needs to start coming down on other countries that demand American corporations to censor themselves under their direction. The moment a call for censorship comes down the line is the moment the U.S. takes a deal off the table or hits them with a sanction. Pavolovski is right. The U.S. needs to start standing up for free speech, and that means teaching the world that trying to punish or stop it comes with pain. 

As for the press, I don't see that problem ever getting better. Corporate news outlets are going to continue to shill for Democrats, and while that's a shame, it's not without its punishments. Citizen journalists and smaller news organizations have become almost more popular and more trusted than these corporate entities. The issue is that many of the corporations that act as gateways to information do censoring of their own, sometimes on behalf of the government, and oftentimes just because the people running these companies don't like opinions or information that's inconvenient to their ideology, which often benefits one side of the political aisle. 

While I'm all for corporations doing what they want as a private entity, something that works that well for one political party seems awfully governmental, and becomes governmental the moment the government steps in and starts directing or urging that corporation to start censoring the free speech of Americans. Is that company not then a puppet of the government in some way, and if so, doesn't that mean it shouldn't be able to stifle free speech?

RedState, in particular, is often confronted with these issues. Major corporations choke certain topics and stories because they don't like what we're reporting. Multiple "fact-check" organizations have attacked us for, frankly, very ridiculous reasons. I've personally had stories I've written censored because it was labeled as "dangerous or derogatory" when they weren't at all just because they challenged a mainstream social idea. 

The whole reason we have the VIP program is because the strategy is to choke the life out of us by hiding our articles away, stripping us of ads, and making sure we're doing nothing but screaming into the ether. The less we're seen, the less chance there is that someone will wake up from the narrative. Moreover, making us seem like we're irrelevant would make the common American's eyes pass over us while scrolling through a search engine IF we ever appear on one. It's hard to kill us off and silence us when we have the backing of readers.

But RedState has done some serious damage to those in power and it's in their best interest to bury us beneath layers of biased algorithms, creative "fact-checks," and limitations on where ads will appear. 

Does it seem right that an information-based corporation with a global stranglehold could work so hard to protect a political party or the politicians that belong to it? 

These are conversations we need to have but they won't ever be held if the right people aren't put in charge. People who understand the value of free speech and the gumption and uncompromising nature it takes to protect it. 

This is where the sleeping giant comes in. This is where the silent majority stops being quiet. 

As I wrote recently, two stories showed that when the people truly rise up and unite against unfair practices and corruption, even powerful organizations back down. 

If we were to come together and make it clear that our politicians need to prioritize free speech to the point where they're willing to get nasty to defend it, then those politicians will step forward. If we demand this of our politicians right now, then the pressure will be on to conform to these demands, and those who fail to will be made examples of as they lose their reputations and careers. 

There can be no misunderstanding among the political class. You WILL protect free speech or you WILL be dismissed. 

If the people fail to understand the importance of free speech then freedom will die, and it will die quietly. People will wake up one day and be in a world they don't recognize. They'll ask where their freedoms went and they won't be able to locate a specific moment where they disappeared because the erosion was so gradual. 

This fight is intensifying. I can tell you that personally as a journalist. You've likely heard it from others in my industry as well. We aren't warning you that the war on free speech is coming. It's here. You're in it. They're finding new ways to curtail your First Amendment rights every day, and at some point, those lines on that old piece of paper won't mean much in the age of the internet. 

Any politician running today needs to be asked if they think fighting for free speech is a big deal and what they're willing to do with tech companies that curtail it for a political party. If they don't think it's a big enough deal to have a plan, then that politician shouldn't be considered a big deal either and passed on. 


at

FBI Confirms It’s Restarting Online Censorship Efforts Ahead Of 2024 Election

The FBI has resumed covert collusive efforts with social media companies to censor posts it claims are “disinformation” 



In Monday, Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told reporters that federal agencies such as the FBI and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) restarted discussions with Big Tech platforms. According to NextGov/FCW, this coordination will focus on “removing disinformation on their sites as the November presidential election nears.” Warner claimed these talks resumed in March, around the same time oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri — which centers on the feds’ censorship efforts — were heard before the U.S. Supreme Court.

When pressed on the validity of Warner’s remarks, an FBI representative confirmed to The Federalist that the agency has resumed communications with social media companies ahead of the 2024 election.

“The FBI remains committed to combatting foreign malign influence operations, including in connection with our elections. That effort includes sharing specific foreign threat information with state and local election officials and private sector companies when appropriate and rigorously consistent with the law,” the representative claimed. “In coordination with the Department of Justice, the FBI recently implemented procedures to facilitate sharing information about foreign malign influence with social media companies in a way that reinforces that private companies are free to decide on their own whether and how to take action on that information.”

CISA External Affairs Specialist Tess Hyre declined The Federalist’s request for comment on whether the agency has resumed discussions with social media companies to combat what it claims to be “disinformation,” but she said that CISA Director Jen Easterly will be participating in an “Election Security” hearing in “the coming weeks.”

Neither the FBI nor CISA responded when pressed on when they restarted communications with social media companies on efforts to remove posts containing so-called “disinformation” from their platforms. The FBI and CISA did not identify the specific companies they’re working with on such efforts. Neither agency provided an answer when questioned on how they determine what constitutes “disinformation” or what other federal agencies they are collaborating with in these efforts to have “disinformation” removed from social media platforms.

The issue of government-compelled censorship is front and center in Murthy v. Missouri, a case before SCOTUS focused on allegations from Missouri and Louisiana that the federal government’s pressuring of social media companies to censor free speech online constitutes a violation of the First Amendment. U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty issued a preliminary injunction in July 2023 barring federal agencies from colluding with Big Tech to censor posts they don’t like. In his ruling, Doughty wrote, “If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently upheld Doughty’s injunction in September. While the initial ruling did not pertain to CISA — often referred to by its critics as the “nerve center” of the federal government’s censorship operations — the court later issued a corrected ruling to prevent CISA from colluding with Big Tech to squash free speech online. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, lifted the Fifth Circuit’s injunction in October, effectively allowing the federal government’s censorship operations to resume while it considered the merits of the case.

SCOTUS is expected to issue a final ruling on the merits of Murthy v. Missouri this summer.

Largely ignored by legacy media, the collusion between the federal government and Big Tech to silence online speech the feds do not approve of is extensive and unprecedented. For example, the Biden administration pressured social media companies to censor Covid-related posts they deemed to be “misinformation” shortly after coming into power, even if such posts contained information that is factually true.

Emails unearthed in Murthy v. Missouri indicate health agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) held regular “misinfo/debunking meeting[s]” with Facebook to discuss the latter’s censorship efforts.

But these efforts are just one facet of the government’s censorship operations. CISA regularly facilitated meetings “between Big Tech companies, and national security and law enforcement agencies to address ‘mis-, dis-, and mal-information’ on social media platforms.”

Leading up to the 2020 election, for instance, the agency upped its censorship efforts by flagging posts for Big Tech companies it claimed were worthy of being censored, some of which called into question the security of voting practices such as mass, unsupervised mail-in voting. This was done despite CISA privately acknowledging the risks associated with such practices.

Neither the FBI nor CISA responded to The Federalist’s request for comment on whether social media posts highlighting the risks of mail-in voting would be flagged as “disinformation.”

An interim report released by House Republicans in November revealed that CISA’s censorship enterprise was more extensive than previously known. According to that analysis, CISA — along with the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) — colluded with Stanford University to pressure Big Tech companies into censoring what they claimed to be “disinformation” during the 2020 election.

At the heart of this operation was the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), “a consortium of ‘disinformation’ academics” spearheaded by the Stanford Internet Observatory that coordinated with DHS and GEC “to monitor and censor Americans’ online speech” ahead of the 2020 contest.

Created “at the request” of CISA, EIP allowed federal officials to “launder [their] censorship activities in hopes of bypassing both the First Amendment and public scrutiny.” As documented in the interim report, this operation attempted to censor “true information, jokes and satire, and political opinions” and submitted flagged posts from prominent conservative figures to Big Tech companies for censorship. Among those targeted were The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway and Sean Davis.

The feds also played a significant role in pressuring social media companies to censor the New York Post’s bombshell report on the Biden family business dealings ahead of the 2020 election.



at