America Faces No Greater Threat Than Joe Biden and the Democrat Party. Their Assault to Our Borders Is As Great As Their Assault to Free Speech and Free Elections
Sunday, July 9, 2023
JOE BIDEN - I'M GIVING BIG TECH BILLIONAIRES NO CAP ON IMPORTING 'CHEAP' LABOR INDIANS. THEY'S CENSOR ALL FACTS ABOUT MY CORRUPTION - IT'S NO FREE SPEECH AMERICA!
"This is how they will destroy America from within. The leftist billionaires who orchestrate these plans are wealthy. Those tasked with representing us in Congress will never be exposed to the cost of the invasion of millions of migrants. They have nothing but contempt for those of us who must endure the consequences of our communities being intruded upon by gang members, drug dealers and human traffickers. These people have no intention of becoming Americans; like the Democrats who welcome them, they have contempt for us." PATRICIA McCARTHY
Judge Doughty and Biden’s Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’
It’s hardly news that the government has long managed news reporting through a combination of leaks, favored treatment, and threats. With the growth of social media and the COVID-19 “pandemic,” the Biden administration blatantly used every tool in its arsenal to censor constitutionally protected free speech. Posters on the pre-Musk Twitter and Facebook, to take the most obvious examples, were regularly shadow banned and even silenced altogether from posting alternate views to those of the government.
This past week, Judge Terry A. Doughty detailed the government’s manipulation of social media in a 155-page memorandum. Based on what was presented to the court, he enjoined agencies, officers, and employees from HHS, NAIAD, CDC, FBI, DoJ, White House, OMB, DHS , and DoS from continuing their practices. Those practices, which the judge characterized as “almost dystopian,” included flagging posts and “urging encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech." It also bans their working with the “Election Integrity Partnership, the Virality Project, the Stanford Internet Observatory, or any like project or group for the purpose of urging suppression or reduction of content posted with social-media companies containing protected free speech.”
The public officials had threatened the social-media companies with adverse consequences for noncompliance, including reforming Section 230 immunity, antitrust enforcement, and increased regulations if they failed to comply. It’s clear that these tactics allowed the Biden Administration to suppress free speech through proxies, where to have done so directly would have resulted in more immediate scrutiny and judicial halt. The memorandum is a well-documented history of the Administration’s unconstitutional control of information.
While a great deal of the suppression concerned COVID-19’s origin, the government response, and treatments, the judge found it was very wide reaching: suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the 2020 election; suppressing speech about the lab-leak origin of COVID-19,the efficacy of masks, lockdowns, and the vaccines; suppressing speech about the integrity of the 2020 election and voting by mail; suppressing even parody content about the Bidens and the administration; suppressing negative posts about the economy and the President himself.
To be sure, the government has some legitimate purposes in monitoring posts which are not violative of the right to free speech. The judge specifically held that the preliminary injunction does not prohibit the defendant agencies, officers and employees from:
(1) informing social-media companies of postings involving criminal activity or criminal conspiracies:
(2) contacting and/or notifying social-media companies of national security threats, extortion, or other threats on its platform;
(3) contacting and/ or notifying social-media of criminal efforts to suppress voting, to provide illegal campaign contributions, of cyber-attacks against election infrastructure, or foreign attempts to influence elections;
(4) informing social-media companies of threats that threaten the public safety or security of the United States;
(5) exercising reasonable government speech promoting government policies or views on matters of public concern;
(6) informing social-media companies of postings intending to mislead voters about voting requirements and procedures;
(7) informing or communicating with social-media companies in an effort to detect, prevent, or mitigate malicious cyber activity;
(8) communicating with social-media companies about deleting, removing, suppressing, or reducing posts on social-media platforms that are not protected free speech by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
This is merely an injunction that is effective only under a full hearing and order in the case, indicating that the court believed the plaintiffs were likely to succeed after a full trial. Nevertheless, the Administration finds so threatening this minimal limit on its power to shut down protected speech that it has filed an immediate appeal.
The most obvious targets at this stage of the case were the infectious disease epidemiologists Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD), leaders in the fight against lockdown policies. They expressed concern that lockdowns had damaging effects on physical and mental health, dissented from the views that everyone needed to be vaccinated, that masks protected people from COVID, that it was appropriate to mask young children, and asserted that natural immunity was stronger than vaccine immunity. But states also have an interest in open discussion of alternate views in setting policies. Missouri and Louisiana contended they have a “sovereign and proprietary interest in free speech.” I think that is inarguable. It is, after all, the most significant reason for the First Amendment -- an informed citizenry.
Lest you think this is just partisan wailing by conservatives who were banned or a theoretical discussion of constitutional law, Brett Swanson shows how it had significant, even deadly, consequences.
Social-media platforms were powerful tools for full-spectrum censorship, but they didn’t act alone. Medical schools, medical boards, science journals and legacy media sang from the same hymnal.
Legions of doctors stayed quiet after witnessing the demonization of their peers who challenged the Covid orthodoxy. A little censorship leads people to watch what they say. Millions of patients and citizens were deprived of important insights as a result.
Health authorities and TV doctors insisted young people were vulnerable, demanded toddlers wear masks, closed schools, beaches and parks, and were loath to contemplate crucial cost-benefit analysis. The economy? Mental health? Never heard of them.
These “experts” denied the protective effects of recovered immunity, a phenomenon we’ve known about since the Plague of Athens in 430 B.C. They effectively prohibited generic drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration, such as azithromycin and ivermectin, which low-income nations around the world were deploying successfully. They failed to appreciate the evolutionary dynamics of mass vaccination during a pandemic.
The U.S. government spent $6 trillion to buoy its shuttered economy, and most people got Covid anyway. Worst of all, the lockdowns and mandates resulted in unprecedented bad health outcomes for young and middle-aged people in rich countries.
Excess mortality in most high-income nations was worse in 2021 and 2022 than in 2020, the initial pandemic year. Many poorer nations with less government control seemed to fare better. Sweden, which didn’t have a lockdown, performed better than nearly every other advanced nation.
After navigating 2020 with relative success, young and middle-age healthy people in rich nations began dying in unprecedented numbers in 2021 and 2022. Health authorities haven’t focused enough on this cataclysm of premature death from non-Covid heart attacks, strokes, pulmonary embolisms, kidney failure and cancer.
This case is most significant, to be sure. Perhaps, as Brendan O’Neill warns, it’s more than a check on mere dictatorial partisanship. The government’s years-long censorship success until now was a logical follow-on to the absurd “words hurt” litany against free speech.
Activists wielding nonsense like “microaggressions,” words that make the listener feel “unsafe,” safe spaces on campuses, the very idea that “words wound,” he contends, are mere libels against free speech and weapons in the hands of those who would deny us that right. This administration found this infantile atmosphere a ticket to control speech with which it disagreed.
What does ‘freedom of the press’ mean when the media eagerly join with the censors?
Right now, censorship is more prevalent than at any time in our lifetimes. And it’s actually embraced by the mainstream media, the Biden administration and the Democrats’ party as a whole.
The Twitter Files published by a group of independent journalists, show the intense censorship promoted by the administration and its agencies through pressure on the tech companies. The mainstream media ignores and suppresses the revelations of the Twitter Files and anything else that would embarrass the administration or offend its supporters.
Democrats profess to be concerned about censorship, but only in so far as it involves what they call “book banning” in Florida, which is really regulating what books can be included in public school libraries. That is something that has always occurred everywhere and with good reason, because some books are not appropriate for young people. But until it became likely that Governor Ron DeSantis might be a presidential contender, it had never before been called “book banning.”
The result of this censorship is that most people are unaware of important facts which, though accurate, cast the administration in a bad light. That’s a huge threat to our democracy. The reason we have freedom of the press is so that the press can protect us from overreaching by the government. The theory is that the press will speak truth to power.
In this current environment, the press is worse than useless. Currently the mainstream media serve as apparatchiks of the Democrat party and the Biden administration. The mainstream media actively promoted the major lies that were powerful intrusions into our election process, which is vital.
It’s also telling that the mainstream media has used the term “The Big Lie“ to refer to Trump’s claim that he won the 2020 election, without including any of the inflammatory fabrications they promoted that were designed to turn elections and to destroy an elected administration.
And unlike Trump’s claim that he won the 2020 election, the lies the mainstream media promoted were far more impactful because their lies had the support of most media, the Democrat party, the intelligence services, and the FBI and the tech companies. Trump’s claims were forcefully opposed by all of the actors that supported the mainstream media’s fabrications.
These lies included among other things, the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, the story that Trump Tower had a direct connection with the server in the Alpha Bank, which is closely tied to the Kremlin, and the story that the authentic emails on Hunter Biden‘s laptop were Russian disinformation.
And these practices not only present the administration in an unrealistically favorable light and the political opposition in an unrealistically unfavorable light, but they mean that all of us are walking around with two very different sets of facts in our heads, depending on the information sources we rely on. This divides our polity so that we find ourselves in a situation reminiscent of the Tower of Babel.
"This is how they will destroy America from within. The leftist billionaires who orchestrate these plans are wealthy. Those tasked with representing us in Congress will never be exposed to the cost of the invasion of millions of migrants. They have nothing but contempt for those of us who must endure the consequences of our communities being intruded upon by gang members, drug dealers and human traffickers. These people have no intention of becoming Americans; like the Democrats who welcome them, they have contempt for us." PATRICIA McCARTHY
Records: Son of Billionaire Democrat Donor George Soros Has Visited the White House 14 Times
BARACK OBAMA DESTROYED THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS USING HIS BANKSTERS AND LA RAZA/UNIDOUS. NOW HE ONLY NEEDS TO FINISH OFF THE BORDER, HAND AMNESTY TO 50 MILLION MEX FLAG WAVERS AND END FREE SPEECH. HE'S ON HIS WAY!
Barack Obama, who was instrumental in fueling the media’s “misinformation” narrative before he left office, has a new buzzword — “digital fingerprints.”
The former Democrat president wants the origin of digital information such as photos and videos to be clearly traced, to fight the spread of deepfakes.
“That technology’s here now,” said Obama in a discussion with his former advisor David Axelrod on the latter’s CNN podcast. “So, most immediately we’re going to have all the problems we had with misinformation before, [but] this next election cycle will be worse.”
President Barack Obama signs the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act alongside Connecticut Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd (center), Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Barney Frank (second right), Vice President Joe Biden (far left), and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (second left) on July 21, 2010. (SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)
“”And the need for us, for the general public, I think to be more discriminating consumers of news and information, the need for us to over time develop technologies to create watermarks or digital fingerprints so we know what is true and what is not true.”
Before he left office, President Obama helped spark the media panic over “fake news” — later rebranded as “misinformation” — that was adopted by the media, NGOs, and tech companies as a pretext to suppress conservative content.
Prior to this, the topic was not discussed widely in the media. Afterwards, it was everywhere. And by 2020, it was a key part of the media and tech industry’s efforts to interfere in the election.
he most obvious targets at this stage of the case were the infectious disease epidemiologists Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD), leaders in the fight against lockdown policies. They expressed concern that lockdowns had damaging effects on physical and mental health, dissented from the views that everyone needed to be vaccinated, that masks protected people from COVID, that it was appropriate to mask young children, and asserted that natural immunity was stronger than vaccine immunity. But states also have an interest in open discussion of alternate views in setting policies. Missouri and Louisiana contended they have a “sovereign and proprietary interest in free speech.” I think that is inarguable. It is, after all, the most significant reason for the First Amendment -- an informed citizenry.
No comments:
Post a Comment