Shanahan was previously Google royalty, having been married to the company’s co-founder until last year, and is a leftist lawyer out of San Francisco—hence her focus on criminal justice “reform” initiatives which translated, means lawlessness and “progressive” criminality.
The study cites a litany of apparent infractions, ranging from algorithmic manipulation to outright censorship. Among the most egregious claims are allegations that Google favored Barack Obama over his Republican rivals John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012, refused to rectify a derogatory “Google bomb” smearing Rick Santorum during the 2012 GOP primaries, and excluded potentially damaging autofill results for Hillary Clinton in 2016 while not extending the same courtesy to Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders.
Barely-there Joe Biden and his vindictive Attorney General Merrick Garland haven’t weaponized the justice system to persecute conservatives, freedom-lovers, Christians, Trump, and his voters; they have implemented “supportive framework conditions” that helpfully disarm, censor, and imprison any American who resists the Deep State. Yes siree, governing is easy when the Ethics Council condones property confiscation, coercion, and controlled speech!
Media Research Center: Google Interfered in 41 U.S. Elections over 16 Years
A new study by the Media Research Center alleges that Google has repeatedly interfered in U.S. elections, favoring leftist candidates and suppressing conservative voices.
Google, the ultra-woke tech giant that dominates online search and advertising, has been accused of a staggering pattern of election interference spanning over 16 years and 41 separate instances, according to a bombshell report from the Media Research Center (MRC). The study, conducted by MRC’s Free Speech America division, levels severe allegations against the Silicon Valley giant, claiming it has systematically utilized its immense technological prowess to sway electoral outcomes in favor of left-leaning candidates.
“MRC researchers have found 41 times where Google interfered in elections over the last 16 years, and its impact has surged dramatically, making it evermore harmful to democracy. In every case, Google harmed the candidates – regardless of party – who threatened its left-wing candidate of choice,” asserted Dan Schneider, vice president of MRC Free Speech America, and Gabriela Pariseau, the division’s editor.
Breitbart’s Google search traffic on Joe Biden flatlined months before the 2020 election.
The study cites a litany of apparent infractions, ranging from algorithmic manipulation to outright censorship. Among the most egregious claims are allegations that Google favored Barack Obama over his Republican rivals John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012, refused to rectify a derogatory “Google bomb” smearing Rick Santorum during the 2012 GOP primaries, and excluded potentially damaging autofill results for Hillary Clinton in 2016 while not extending the same courtesy to Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders.
Moreover, the researchers assert that Google disabled Tulsi Gabbard’s ad account during the 2020 Democratic debates, suppressed negative coverage of Joe Biden, concealed most Republican campaign websites in 2022’s competitive Senate races, and is actively aiding Biden’s 2024 campaign by “burying in its search results the campaign websites of every one of his significant opponents.”
NEW YORK, NY – NOVEMBER 07: Rep. Tulsi Gabbard talks with SiriusXM’s “Breitbart News Daily” at SiriusXM Studios on November 7, 2019 in New York City. (Photo by Cindy Ord/Getty Images for SiriusXM)
The authors of the study allege that this pattern of misconduct extends far beyond mere isolated incidents. “Utilizing the many tools in its arsenal, Google aided those who most closely aligned with its leftist values from election cycle to election cycle since as far back as the 2008 presidential election. Meanwhile, it targeted for censorship those candidates who posed the most serious threat,” they wrote, accusing the company of making election interference “an organizational mission.”
Supporting these claims, the study cites research from Dr. Robert Epstein, who concluded that Google’s algorithm likely shifted at least 2.6 million votes toward Hillary Clinton in 2016, while its “results and get-out-the-vote reminders favored Democrats and shifted the 2020 election results by at least 6 million votes.”
Google has adamantly refuted the allegations, asserting it has implemented robust safeguards to ensure unbiased and accurate search results. “There is absolutely nothing new here – just a recycled list of baseless, inaccurate complaints that have been debunked by third parties and many that failed in the courts,” a Google spokesperson told Fox News Digital, adding, “We have a clear business incentive to keep everyone using our products, so we have no desire to make them biased or inaccurate.”
Read more at MRC Free Speech here.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship.
KENNEDY'S V.P. NICOLE SHANAHAN IS A GEORGE SOROS GAMER LAWYER TO PROTECT THE CRIMINALS. ONE LOOK AT OUR MELTDOWN CITIES AND WE CAN SEE HOW DANGEROUS THESE PEOPLE ARE!
Leftist D.A.s, A.G.s, and Judges
Does there not appear to be a more profitable gig today than to be a leftist proponent of political lawfare? Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, Arthur Engoron, Fani Willis, George Gascon, Jack Smith, oh my! These miscreants have turned “the law” on its ear and are nothing more than leftist attack dogs (mis)using the law to thwart the will of the people and destroy the premise of equal justice under the law.
HILLARY IS NOT TOO CORRUPT FOR SHANAHAN!
If you scroll through Shanahan’s FEC donations list, you find that not only did she donate to Joe Biden’s campaign fund in 2020, but she donated thousands to Hillary’s campaign in 2016.
DO WE NEED MORE WOKE FASCISM OR A 38-YEAR-OLD CONNECTED TO GOOGLE, JOE BIDEN'S UNOFFICIAL CENSORS?
RFK Jr. has a running mate, and she’s a radical leftist
Conservatives, we need to disabuse ourselves of the idea that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is a moderate.
Revealed just minutes ago, Kennedy has selected a running mate, a fellow Californian, Nicole Shanahan:
Written earlier today, prior to the announcement from Kennedy, an item out at Breitbart News reported on the “rumor” of Shanahan’s selection, and her past political loyalties:
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s rumored choice for a running mate is a leftist ‘criminal justice’ advocate who has given thousands to President Joe Biden and Democrats.
…
More specifically, it appears Shanahan gave $30,000 to the Biden campaign in 2020, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) data. She also has made several donations to ActBlue, the Democrat fundraising arm, as well as one to the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
Shanahan was previously Google royalty, having been married to the company’s co-founder until last year, and is a leftist lawyer out of San Francisco—hence her focus on criminal justice “reform” initiatives which translated, means lawlessness and “progressive” criminality.
Unsurprisingly, she’s also a financial supporter of Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón; according to the official recall movement seeking to remove Gascón from office, Shanahan gave Gascón at least $175,000 in donations. The man is a Soros-owned DA, and a reliable advocate of abusers and criminals. Among other things, Gascón has enforced, and continues to do so, a number of directives, including:
The elimination of cash bail
Ending the use of sentence enhancements and letting violent criminals off easy
Refusing to prosecute juveniles as adults, regardless of the crime or circumstances
Abandoning victims at parole hearings
Declining to prosecute crimes that affect quality of life
Never seeking the death penalty or life without parole, even in the most egregious cases
And apparently Shanahan also supported Buttigieg? How is that even possible? How did that freak ever rally any support?
If you scroll through Shanahan’s FEC donations list, you find that not only did she donate to Joe Biden’s campaign fund in 2020, but she donated thousands to Hillary’s campaign in 2016. She’s also donated to “Emily’s List” which explicitly aims to “recruit, train, and support Democratic pro-choice [emphasis added] women running for office up and down the ballot.”
Kennedy is not a “common sense moderate” as many conservatives seem to believe; he’s an out-and-out leftist, with one redeeming quality, and this is his vocal opposition to Big Pharma. Here’s an astute articulation, via someone in the Breitbart comments:
Its [sic] pathetic how conservatives fall for it every time. They are just so desperate to ‘reach across the aisle’ and try to make nice with these leftists. How about treating the enemy trying to destroy you like an enemy? How about we stop pandering and groveling trying to make them like us? And we start making them respect us for a change?
Too many conservatives are known for our lack of fortitude, or willingness to fight, always looking to make peace and not be disagreeable; too many have such a low threshold for a win, they’ll seemingly take anything. And, a lot of conservatives seem to think that Kennedy will pull more votes from Joe than he will Trump, but I beg to differ—if we’ve learned one thing about voters on the left, what is it?
They’re utterly shameless.
They have no qualms about voting for a man who literally told black voters that they weren’t really black if they dared defy the Democrat party and vote for President Trump. They don’t lose an ounce of sleep over the fact that Biden’s own daughter allegedly wrote about being hunted down in the shower by her father. They cheer on what they know is obvious lawfare and egregious abuse of the justice system, because it satiates their “get Trump” bloodlust (for now). They have no remorse for their vote after witnessing what illegals are doing to this country, and apparently don’t feel an ounce of guilt that our lives, our wealth, and our liberty is being stolen, as we’re being taxed and robbed into poverty. They look at babies mutilated by abortionists and laugh. They celebrate pedophiles exposing children to fetish sex acts, aberrant behavior, and pornography.
Why would they have a sudden crisis of conscience now? Now, miraculously, they can’t seem to put their name down next to the horrendously disgusting man that Biden is because there’s a more “moral” option in Kennedy? I just can’t reconcile that. What I can conceive of is the go-along-to-get-along conservative who doesn’t want to be seen as a “MAGA extremist” vote for the “moral” moderate.
Let’s hope this is another wake-up call for conservatives who somehow believe Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is a “centrist” and his movement is nothing more than a rejection of both the “right” and the “left” poles of the political establishment.
Image: Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons, unaltered.
Barely-there Joe Biden and his vindictive Attorney General Merrick Garland haven’t weaponized the justice system to persecute conservatives, freedom-lovers, Christians, Trump, and his voters; they have implemented “supportive framework conditions” that helpfully disarm, censor, and imprison any American who resists the Deep State. Yes siree, governing is easy when the Ethics Council condones property confiscation, coercion, and controlled speech!
Globalism Thrives on Crisis
Globalists know that nothing drives public policy so much as the fear of impending death. Nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles may have scared the snot out of anyone living through the Cold War, but they were (and still are) the gifts that keep on giving for the military-industrial complex and national security surveillance State. The more catastrophic the consequences of any perceived threat, the more likely that otherwise skeptical human beings will hand over their freedoms in exchange for the elusive promise of personal security. Political systems specialize in exploiting this “Save Me!” impulse for maximum leverage. “Looming apocalypse” is Big Government’s best salesman every year.
Ghost stories about “global warming” work the same way. If voters can be convinced that their economic freedom is leading to humanity’s extinction, then they will accept costly regulations and “green energy”-induced inflation. If they can be brainwashed into believing that hydrocarbon energy is evil, then they will actively protest for a future with intermittent yet expensive electric power. If they can be deluded into thinking that only politicians and central bankers can save the planet, then they will embrace communism in order to fight “climate change.” Given the fact that Earth’s climate is always naturally changing — whether humans are alive to notice or not — governments’ success in conditioning gullible people to fear every change in the weather has been remarkably effective in creating voluntary slaves.
It’s also no surprise that UN Secretary-General António Guterres and other doomsayer charlatans are now hyperventilating about “global boiling.” Generations who were told they would die decades ago have learned to discount apocalyptic warnings. Human experience creates a natural immunity to bullsh*t. Conversely, totalitarianism succeeds only when society’s level of anxiety can be ratcheted up well above eleventy! That’s why every iteration of the so-called “climate emergency” must sound more scary than the last. It’s also why each new season of “Climate Change: the Coming Armageddon” targets children who have never seen old episodes of the boring series. It may be the longest running television program of all time, but ignorant youths — who cannot imagine that their governments would ever lie to them — fall for the dying planet horror show every time.
This is the kind of madness that “green” false prophets perpetrate upon unsuspecting peoples — stoking irrational fears in a misanthropic and Machiavellian quest for raw power. Twentieth-century totalitarians also came to power by spreading madness and inflaming irrational fears. Whereas Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao obsessed over foreign ideas, capitalist leanings, religious beliefs, and racial impurities, today’s globalists obsess over hydrocarbons, “white supremacy,” and “hate” speech. Future generations will see no distinction. Just like the monsters of the past, today’s Deep State agents seize power by manufacturing emergencies. Dictators always arrive on triumphal chariots that run on lies.
The German Deep State is similar to the American Deep State — in that both love to lecture the world about “democracy” and “freedom” while censoring conservatives’ speech, criminalizing political dissent, spewing propaganda, and manipulating elections. Both also have a penchant for creating committees and agencies that engage in behaviors they pretend to police — disinformation boards that spread lies, humanitarian aid groups that foment war, pro-democracy coalitions that seek to ban political groups and public debate. For the German and American Deep States, language is a weapon for deceiving the people.
In one particularly laughable example, German law mandates the operation of an Ethics Council — an independent body of “experts” — that seems dedicated to finding ways to justify the government’s unethical behaviors. How do you convince people to accept unscientific lockdowns and experimental “vaccines”? Tell them that a nonpartisan crew of credentialed “experts” has checked for ethical landmines and determined that everything’s hunky-dory. A few weeks ago, the morality Star Chamber published an opinion about “Climate Justice” that lays the groundwork for a future when all German activity will be strictly monitored for carbon-rationing compliance: “On grounds of justice, it can be morally required to contribute to measures to tackle climate change. If one’s own exercise of freedom interferes in an unjust manner with the freedom and welfare of others or of future generations, for example through consumption that is harmful to the climate, the authorities may intervene with restrictions of freedom.”
As with all Deep State initiatives that say one thing while doing its opposite, Germany’s Ethics Council promises the public that it is wholly opposed to suspending “democratic freedoms” but encourages the government to create “supportive framework conditions” — including carbon taxes, personal emissions limits, product bans, and “compensatory payments” to “ongoing neo-colonial dependencies” — that will nudge Germans to do the right thing. Ahh, nothing says freedom like new taxes, forced redistribution of wealth, regulatory kicks to the groin, financial blackmail, and total personal surveillance! Just because the government holds a gun to the back of your head while you make decisions doesn’t mean you are any less free — the unethical Ethics Council says so!
There’s something so spectacularly German about the morality police redefining totalitarianism as merely “supportive framework conditions.” Who could argue against a “supportive framework”? It’s the kind of linguistic chicanery that other Western nations will readily mimic. Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau didn’t confiscate the bank accounts of Freedom Convoy protesters in order to quell dissent and chill free speech; he was merely creating “supportive framework conditions” for their abject submission. Australia and New Zealand didn’t set up Stasi roadblocks, checkpoints, and involuntary detainment camps during the Great COVID Hoax; they simply constructed a “supportive framework” for a functioning police State. Barely-there Joe Biden and his vindictive Attorney General Merrick Garland haven’t weaponized the justice system to persecute conservatives, freedom-lovers, Christians, Trump, and his voters; they have implemented “supportive framework conditions” that helpfully disarm, censor, and imprison any American who resists the Deep State. Yes siree, governing is easy when the Ethics Council condones property confiscation, coercion, and controlled speech!
At the end of the day, globalism thrives on crisis. It is a political philosophy in perpetual search of apocalyptic threats that can be used as expedient pretexts for justifying why a small cabal of financial titans and global elites should exercise total control over local communities. Crisis is its brand, its currency, and its product. For globalism to persist, no crisis can ever be solved unless a new one is on its way.
The inherently destructive nature of globalism has left the public in a permanent state of anticipatory dread. Roughly two-thirds of Americans not only expect a third world war to break out within the next decade but also believe nuclear conflagration is inevitable. The idea that the American Deep State will instigate some kind of “false flag” incident prior to the 2024 election is discussed as broadly among well-known public figures as it is among ordinary commenters online. Catherine Herridge, Ron Paul, Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson, and General Mike Flynn have all expressed concern that an unforeseen “Black Swan” event will occur before the end of the year. Flynn says forthrightly that globalists will conclude, “Look, there’s no way in the world that [Biden] can win a legitimate, fair election, so let’s not have one.” And “in order to not have one,” the Deep State will “create the conditions” to produce that “outcome.”
That nuclear war, election rigging, and “Black Swan” disasters are spoken of so matter-of-factly reflects an almost fatalistic consensus that everything will soon fall apart. In other words, globalism has largely succeeded in cultivating a pervasive expectation of our impending social death. That’s an astonishing indictment of the path Western leaders have forged over the last century. As they have burned the world to the ground, their legacy is general misery. For free and happy people to live, globalism must surely die.
Image via Picryl.
JOE BIDEN'S GESTOPO MAN IS GAMER LAWYER MERRICK GARLAND WHO IS IN CHARAGE OF PUSHING THE BIDEN FASCIST REGIME AND PURSUNG BIDEN'S MANY POLITICAL AND NON-POLITICAL ENEMIES - THINK PRO-LIFERS!
It certainly worked for Biden in 2020, and his Attorney General, Merrick Garland, arguably the most corrupt and weaponized in history—that’s saying something with Obama’s “wingman,” Eric Holder in the running—is working hard to keep that organization up and running:
JOE BIDEN, FUKING MANIAC
RFK Jr.: Biden Suspended Free Speech
RFK Jr.: Why Our Economy Is Headed For Collapse
Report: Biden Administration Relying on Democrat ‘Influencers’ Who Created ‘Bloodbath’ Hoax
Democrat social media “influencers” affiliated with the White House created the “bloodbath” hoax — the misleading claim that former President Donald Trump called for a “bloodbath” of political violence if he is not elected, according to a report.
“Acyn,” an anonymous senior digital editor for the activist liberal news site MeidasTouch.com, first made a video clip of Trump’s speech from Ohio, in which the former president warned of an economic bloodbath for the United States auto industry due to Chinese manufacturing.
WATCH — Fake News Freakout! Leftist Media Hoax over Trump’s “Bloodbath” Comment… What Did He Actually Say?:
However, instead of showing Trump’s full remarks, they were presented out of context to suggest that Trump was referring to political violence if he is not elected.
According to Semafor, Democrats “leaped to demand news outlets cover it as a major story that underscored Trump’s violent intentions.”
Despite backlash for the hoax being misleading, the official rapid-response X account for the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris 2024 campaign pushed the hoax in a number of posts and then turned the moment into a campaign ad.
According to the report, the Biden White House has embraced Acyn and other social media influencers pushing out misleading content about Trump, even inviting Acyn and his boss, Ron Filipkowski, and other social media influencers such as Aaron Rupar, to “talk strategy” before the State of the Union.
They were reportedly given a preview of the speech, and spoke with White House strategist Anita Dunn and Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff about the president’s agenda.
Anita Dunn (L) at the U.S. Capitol on July 22, 2021, in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Dunn praised Filipkowski, Rupar, and other influencers to Semafor:
We need to be creative and move fast to contrast the President’s optimistic agenda for the future with the extreme agenda of Republican officials who want to take us back in time… . Aaron, Ron, and many others are on the front lines of making sure the American people know the truth of what is at stake.
Filipkowski told the outlet that one of his goals was to change the “storyline” of Biden’s “presidential feebleness,” by highlighting Trump gaffes.
“The Meidas guys, as a team, said: We are going to do this to Trump,” Filipkowski told Semafor:
We are going to hit every gaffe, every mispronunciation, every slurred word, every mispronounced name, every time he mixes up a name. We’re going to clip that and we’re going to put it out and we’re going to put it in montages. No one else was doing that. Before last August, you can’t find a mainstream media story about Trump mispronouncing and slurring words. They weren’t out there.
The Intercept’s Ryan Grim reportedly criticized Rupar and other similar social media influencers as “Trump’s most valuable weapons,” for highlighting quotes that Trump could spin away — such as the misleading “bloodbath” hoax.
Grim reportedly called Rupar “a threat to the free press, undermining honest reporters by presenting himself as a journalist but behaving as a partisan hack.”
Follow Breitbart News’s Kristina Wong on ”X”, Truth Social, or on Facebook.
America First Legal: Biden Administration Actively Supports Foreign Censorship Campaigners
Evidence uncovered by America First Legal reveals that the Biden Administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and State Department have been actively supporting a foreign-based organization in its efforts to censor Americans’ speech online.
America First Legal, a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting the rule of law, has recently exposed a disturbing collaboration between the Biden Administration and the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a United Kingdom-based nonprofit that has been encouraging online censorship for years. The evidence suggests that the Biden Administration has been mobilizing federal counterterrorism assets to support CCDH’s global censorship campaign, raising serious concerns about the government’s role in suppressing free speech.
According to the documents obtained by America First Legal, the Biden Administration’s National Security Council published its first-ever National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism on June 15, 2021. The strategy asserted that “Internet-based communications platforms” make Americans vulnerable to “domestic terrorist recruitment and other harmful content,” effectively justifying censorship and turning to the national security state and allied technology companies to censor political opponents.
The Biden Administration’s strategy involved building a community of “critical partners,” including foreign allies, civil society, and the technology sector, to control information and promote censorship. The administration endorsed the Christchurch Call to Action, an international initiative to eliminate “terrorist and violent extremist content online,” which the Trump Administration had previously refused on free speech grounds.
CCDH, led by leftist political operative Imran Ahmed, has been a key player in this censorship campaign. The organization is best known for its March 24, 2021 report, “THE DISINFORMATION DOZEN,” which branded 12 Americans, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as “anti-vaxxers” and called for their blacklisting online. The Missouri v. Biden case revealed that White House officials quickly pressured social media companies to act on this report.
Emails obtained by America First Legal show that DHS Under Secretary Robert Silvers and CCDH’s then-Head of Policy, Eva Hartshorn-Sanders, connected in March 2022 to discuss CCDH’s research and the DHS’s strategies and plans. Hartshorn-Sanders also invited Silvers and the DHS Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism to CCDH’s Global Summit and Changemakers Dinner.
By September 2022, CCDH was directly meeting with officials from the White House, the National Security Council, and the State Department’s Bureau of Counterterrorism, updating them with CCDH’s latest findings and submitting policy recommendations to the White House Task Force to Address Online Harassment and Abuse.
The mobilization of federal counterterrorism assets to promote censorship and suppress dissenting voices is a clear threat to the First Amendment and the fundamental principles of free speech, and the evidence uncovered by America First Legal raises alarming questions about the Biden Administration’s involvement in supporting a foreign organization’s efforts to censor American speech.
Read more at America First Legal here.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship.
House Majority Whip Signals Biden’s Overtly Political SOTU May Have Blown Up Tradition
House Majority Whip Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN) suggested this weekend that Democrat President Joe Biden’s overtly political State of the Union address may have disintegrated the tradition of presidents being invited to deliver the annual speech before the House chamber.
While Republicans, including Emmer — who has endorsed former President Donald Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee in 2024 — hope Trump defeats Biden in November, if somehow Biden comes back and wins the election this year, Emmer said that House Republicans might not welcome Biden back for a State of the Union address next year.
“That was about the most divisive State of the Union — I wouldn’t extend him an invitation next year, if that’s what we’re going to get,” Emmer said in an interview with Axios published on Sunday.
This may set things down a slippery slope, too, whereby Republicans do not invite Democrat presidents to give a State of the Union address and vice versa in divided government.
President Joe Biden delivers the State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress at the Capitol, Thursday, March 7, 2024, in Washington. (Shawn Thew/Pool via AP)
In Biden’s speech, he attacked Trump more than a dozen times — repeatedly calling Trump “my predecessor” throughout the speech. Biden also laid out an aggressively leftist agenda replete with tax increases, more spending, radical border and immigration policies, and even for sending U.S. military forces into Gaza to build a port to send aid there. Biden, in addition, regularly attacked the Republicans in the chamber.
Nonetheless, Emmer’s argument extends even beyond Biden continuing as president and said that Congress should reconsider welcoming a president to deliver a speech to give their State of the Union update to Congress. For many years throughout U.S. history, a State of the Union address from the president to Congress just simply did not happen. In fact, while George Washington — the nation’s first president — did address Congress in person, it was not until President Woodrow Wilson in 1913 that presidents began appearing in person before Congress to give what has become known as the State of the Union address.
U.S. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) speaks to reporters as he leaves a House Republican candidates forum on October 23, 2023, in Washington, DC. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
“Since Washington’s first speech to Congress, U.S. Presidents have ‘from time to time’ given Congress an assessment of the condition of the union. Presidents have used the opportunity to present their goals and agenda through broad ideas or specific details. The annual message or ‘State of the Union’ message’s length, frequency, and method of delivery have varied from President to President and era to era,” the White House website from the George W. Bush administration said, explaining the history of the address. “For example, Thomas Jefferson thought Washington’s oral presentation was too kingly for the new republic. Likewise, Congress’s practice of giving a courteous reply in person at the President’s residence was too formal. Jefferson detailed his priorities in his first annual message in 1801 and sent copies of the written message to each house of Congress. The President’s annual message, as it was then called, was not spoken by the President for the next 112 years. The message was often printed in full or as excerpts in newspapers for the American public to read.”
Emmer seemed to suggest that Congress might do well to return to that model of doing business, given the fact that Biden seems to have ruined the tradition with his address this year.
“He’s not going to be there next year — it’ll be a different president,” Emmer told Axios. “But I think you’ve got to rethink issuing invitations for a State of the Union if it’s not going to be a State of the Union, and that was not. That was a campaign speech.”
RFK Jr. Backs GOP Lawsuits Against Biden Administration over Social Media Censorship
Independent presidential candidate Robert F.
Kennedy, Jr. has voiced support for
Republican-led lawsuits accusing the Biden
administration of unlawfully coercing social
media platforms to censor content.
The Hill reports that as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two high-stakes cases concerning social media censorship on Tuesday, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. weighed in, aligning himself with the Republican states of Louisiana and Missouri in their legal battle against the White House.
President Joe Biden delivers a primetime speech at Independence National Historical Park September 1, 2022 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg arrives for the 8th annual Breakthrough Prize awards ceremony at NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California on November 3, 2019. (Photo by JOSH EDELSON/AFP via Getty Images)
Kennedy, an independent candidate for the 2024 presidential election, contends that President Biden’s administration attempted to censor his own social media posts, echoing the central allegations raised by Louisiana and Missouri. In an interview with NewsNation’s Chris Cuomo, Kennedy asserted, “I don’t think the government should be involved. The social media sites are welcome to have programs or processes or community rules with a consensus, but once the government gets involved and the First Amendment is implicated, things get out of hand.”
The crux of the Supreme Court cases revolves around claims that the Biden White House illegally pressured social media companies to restrict accounts the government claimed were spreading misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic. The states of Louisiana and Missouri argue that such actions violated the First Amendment rights of those targeted for censorship.
Kennedy’s personal experience adds weight to the states’ arguments. In January 2021, his social media accounts were restricted after he posted misinformation claiming that baseball legend Hank Aaron died from complications of the COVID vaccine – a claim disputed by medical experts. Kennedy alleges that the White House instructed social media sites to restrict his accounts, leading him to file a separate lawsuit against the administration.
While Kennedy secured an injunction in his case last month, it was temporarily stayed pending the outcome of the Supreme Court hearings. The justices themselves appeared divided during Tuesday’s oral arguments, with both liberal and conservative members expressing concerns about the potential implications of the states’ positions.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, for instance, questioned whether the states’ view could “hamstring the government in significant ways in the most important time periods.” Conversely, other justices seemed sympathetic to the notion that the government overstepped its bounds by influencing content moderation decisions.
The cases originate from a Louisiana-based federal judge’s order last July, which initially barred Biden administration officials from communicating with social media companies about “the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction” of content containing “protected free speech.” While a three-judge panel on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed the original order in September, it agreed that administration officials likely violated the First Amendment by requesting the removal of specific content.
As the Supreme Court deliberates, the lower court rulings remain paused during the appeal process. The ultimate decision could have far-reaching implications for the boundaries of government involvement in online speech and the extent to which social media platforms can be influenced by political pressure.
Read more at the Hill here.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship.
Democrats set up unit to attack third-party candidates
The Democratic Party is launching a full-scale campaign against third-party competition in the 2024 presidential election, mobilizing both the resources of the Democratic National Committee and of outside political action committees funded by longtime Democratic multimillionaire donors.
The effort is its first-ever publicly announced campaign against third parties, although the Democrats have a long and sordid record of behind-the-scenes efforts to block the emergence of any left-wing, let alone socialist, challenge to the capitalist two-party system. Democrats have frequently challenged the efforts of socialist candidates to obtain ballot status, particularly in closely contested elections.
The initial target of the public Democratic campaign, according to reports Thursday by NBC News and the Washington Post, is the announced third-party campaign of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is running on a right-wing program of vaccine denial and other conspiracy theories. But there is little doubt that it will be directed primarily at the campaigns of Cornel West, Green Party candidate Jill Stein and, in particular, the recently-announced campaign of Socialist Equality Party candidates Joseph Kishore for president and Jerry White for vice president.
NBC reported: “The Democratic National Committee is building its first team to counter third-party and independent presidential candidates, people involved told NBC News, as the party and its allies prepare for a potential all-out war on candidates they view as spoilers.”
The NBC article added, “More legal challenges are almost guaranteed, with attorneys actively monitoring third-party ballot access attempts across the country to look for any slip-up that could be exploited.” That is, the Democrats are preparing to challenge every signature and use every anti-democratic legal maneuver to prevent challengers from being on the ballot.
“The DNC has hired veteran Democratic operative Lis Smith, best known for her work guiding the 2020 presidential campaign of Pete Buttigieg, to help oversee an aggressive communications component of its strategy, which also includes opposition research and legal challenges. Underscoring how important Democrats view the effort, it is being overseen by Mary Beth Cahill and Ramsey Reid, two veteran DNC insiders … Matt Corridoni, Smith’s former deputy on the Buttigieg campaign and most recently a top aide to Rep. Jake Auchincloss, D-Mass., is also joining the team as a spokesperson.”
The NBC and Washington Post articles cited a series of comments by prominent Democratic Party operatives blaming the party’s losses in the 2000 and 2016 presidential campaigns on the role of the Green Party and independent Ralph Nader. In both elections, the Democrats won a plurality in the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College, but they chose to blame not the archaic and anti-democratic structure involving electoral votes, but the supposed “spoiler” role of Nader and Jill Stein, who “diverted” votes from Democrats Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.
This effort includes not only well-funded Democratic-oriented groups like Third Way, American Bridge and Move-On, but newly established groups like Citizens to Save Our Republic, which, the Post reported, “called on all third-party candidates to sign a pledge to leave the race in six swing states by July 1 if they have not qualified in enough states to win the electoral college and have not polled competitively.”
A new super PAC, Clear Choice, was recently founded by Pete Kavanaugh, a deputy campaign manager for Biden’s 2020 campaign. In a statement issued by the group, Kavanaugh declared:
“It’s imperative that this election is a clear choice between President Biden and Donald Trump. No third-party or independent candidate has any chance of winning a state in November, never mind reaching 270 electoral votes. They are spoilers, plain and simple. We’re here to work with allies to ensure those candidates are held accountable, and everything is on the table.”
That “everything” includes brazenly anti-democratic methods labeled insuring that third-party candidates “play by the rules,” that is, they conform to rules set down by the Democrats and Republicans to exclude third-party competition as much as possible.
The efforts to counter third party campaigns avoid dealing with the political issues which motivate voters to break with the Democratic Party, mainly the right-wing and pro-war policies of the party and its candidates. Instead, they seek to terrorize voters with the prospect that if they refuse to vote for Biden, Trump will win. As one official told NBC, Trump’s ceiling in the popular vote was about 46 percent, and the Democratic strategy was to “compel the remaining majority of voters to back Biden.”
Longtime Democratic operative Joe Trippi, now with Citizens to Save Our Republic, explained this analysis, according to NBC: “Trump expanded his vote share from 2016 to 2020, from 46.1% to 46.9%, but won in 2016 and lost in 2020 because of third parties, Trippi argued. In 2016, third-party candidates collectively received almost 5% of the national popular vote, while in 2020 they earned only about 1.5% of the vote.”
The result was a Biden victory, a formula which must be repeated in 2024, Trippi claimed. “The single biggest threat that helps put Trump back in the White House is third-party candidates. It’s not Biden’s age. It’s not whether Trump gets convicted. It’s not any of that stuff,” he told NBC.
This utterly cynical approach is a hallmark of the decay of capitalist politics. It is in fact the thoroughly right-wing character of the Biden administration, together with its systematic efforts to revive the Republican Party on the basis of support for war, that is responsible for the fact that Trump is in a position to regain the White House.
Socialist Equality Party presidential candidate Joseph Kishore noted that Michigan, the first state in which the SEP is seeking ballot status, is considered one of the most critical states for the Biden reelection campaign, and that the resources of the Democratic Party and its most fervent backers, such as the United Auto Workers union bureaucracy, would be mobilized against the socialist campaign.
“The SEP campaign is fighting for the working class to break with the Democrats and the Republicans,” Kishore said. “There is no alternative for working people and youth between the fascist Republican Trump and the Democrat Biden, instigator of imperialist war in Ukraine and defender of genocide in Gaza.
“In the initial stages of our drive to collect enough petition signatures to meet the state requirement of 12,000 registered voters, we are explaining the connection between the fight against war and the fight of workers against inequality and capitalism, and for socialism.”
Democrats Cannot Win a Fraud-Free Election
Joe Biden, or whoever the Democrat nominee may be, cannot win the 2024 election fairly. While all mainstream networks focus on Trump’s alleged negatives, these pale in comparison to those of Biden and his party. The neocon faction of the Republican Party has claimed this election will be a referendum on Trump. However, the real referendum will be on Joe Biden and the Democrat party as a whole.
There have been a noteworthy number of “referendum” elections throughout history, where a nominee’s fate was determined by their, or their party’s, poor handling of a significant crisis. In fact, there has been one almost every decade since the 1960s.
The most important issue in the 1968 election was the highly unpopular Vietnam War, which coincided with a period of immense civil unrest following the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy. As a result, President Lyndon B. Johnson, suspecting a voter backlash, became the first president not to seek reelection since 1928. Instead, his Vice President Hubert Humphrey was chosen as the Democrat nominee. But he could not overcome the public’s dissatisfaction and was defeated largely due to Johnson’s handling of those issues.
Richard Nixon was the beneficiary of the Johnson referendum. But just a few years later, it was he who prompted another. Despite the country voting in a landslide for him in 1972, Nixon resigned following the Watergate scandal only two years later. Voters expressed their disgust by voting out Nixon’s VP and Republican nominee Gerald Ford in the 1976 election, with historians citing Ford’s pardon of Nixon as a key reason for his election loss.
President Carter kept with recent tradition by allowing crises to determine his electoral fate. Carter’s presidency was marred by two historically awful issues: Inflation and the Iranian hostage crisis that began exactly one year before the election. As a result, voters arrived at the ballot box with empty wallets and immense anger over Americans being trapped abroad, so the electoral map reverted almost identically to Nixon’s 1972 landslide by 1980.
President George H.W. Bush was able to ride the coattails of the popular Reagan years to a comfortable Electoral College victory in 1988. But he would go on to preside over a recession and a major unemployment problem. These issues even prompted the emergence of third-party candidate businessman named Ross Perot to run for the presidency, which undoubtedly aided in Bush’s defeat, in addition to the already dissatisfied sentiment regarding the economy amongst voters.
By 2008, it was another Bush whose reign led to a blowout election. George W. Bush’s high approval following the September 11th attacks had vanished by 2008, as he, like his father, presided over a recession. This culminated in a stock market crash on September 29th, 2008, just weeks before the election. His decision-making regarding the Middle East had also grown increasingly unpopular. Unsurprisingly, his party’s nominee, John McCain, was defeated in an Electoral College landslide.
Each of these presidents and nominees bore the stain of one or two very important crises in the lead-up to the election. These elections resulting in relatively noncompetitive defeats proves one major crisis is all it takes to lose. Joe Biden and the Democrat party have five, all of which the public is squarely placing blame on his administration and party.
The seemingly biggest issue of concern right now is the border crisis. Immediately upon taking office, Biden halted border wall construction. He then ended Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), also known as “Remain in Mexico,” which required asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while their immigration cases were being processed. He has also severely handicapped Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ability to curtail illegal migration. This has resulted in a massive influx of illegal aliens who have wreaked havoc on American society by flooding its cities and committing serious crimes, including murders.
If immigration is the number one issue, the economy is 1B. Jimmy Carter has always been known as the inflation president, but Biden has managed it worse. Carter took office with inflation at 5.2% and saw it eventually rise to a high of 14.8%, a 184% increase. Biden took office with inflation at just 1.4%, and saw it increase to 9.1%, which is a 550% increase. Carter inherited an inflation problem and made it worse. Biden created one. Further, since Biden took office the average monthly mortgage payment has nearly doubled from $1,746 to $3,322, while the median household income has fallen during that time, crushing the American dream of home ownership for countless Americans.
Biden has further emptied Americans pockets by waging war on the American energy sector. His obsession (or his handler’s obsession) with electric energy replacing “climate change causing” sources of energy has been devastating. Biden restricted oil and gas leasing which harmed domestic energy production, and signed executive orders aimed at ensuring half of all new vehicles sold by 2030 are electric. This attack has resulted in all 50 states setting record highs in gas prices during his tenure, as the average cost of gas has been over three dollars per gallon nationally for over one thousand days now.
Foreign affairs are another factor causing Americans unease. With the election appearing to be a rematch between President Trump and Joe Biden, a rare comparing of apples to (rotten) apples is set to commence. Even partisans acknowledge the increasingly hostile state of global affairs under Biden compared to Trump. Cries that Trump would trigger a nuclear war with North Korea were unwarranted as he instead brokered world peace before handing the keys to Biden. While this was expected to continue, calamity continues to unfold instead. Biden has added salt to this wound by throwing endless amounts of American money at foreign problems while allowing anyone, including those from countries where terror is ensuing, to illegally to come across the border unvetted. This exponentially increases the potential for similar terror as we are seeing abroad to reach the United States.
The final crisis is the weaponization of government. Under Biden, Americans are seeing unprecedented weaponization. Jack Smith was appointed special counsel in the classified documents and January 6th indictments of President Trump, both widely viewed to be politically motivated. Smith was directly appointed by Biden’s Attorney General, Merrick Garland. Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis met directly with the Biden administration shortly before prosecuting Trump for election interference. In the New York-based hush money case, Matthew Colangelo, who previously targeted Trump during his time in the New York AG’s office, recently left the Biden/Garland DoJ and joined Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s team that is targeting Trump. Beyond targeting the preferred candidate of millions of Americans, Biden’s FBI has also targeted traditional Catholics, labeling them as potential violent extremists, in addition to Biden’s White House encouraging major social media platforms to violate the First Amendment by removing posts they disagreed with.
When push comes to shove, voters vote for what is best for their health, safety, and finances over rhetoric or personality. This means only a high-level voter fraud operation will allow this agenda to continue.
As flavor-of-the-month narratives about what will sway voters flood mainstream networks between now and November 5th, recognize that any time a president or party has been widely viewed as responsible for significant crises, they are voted out of power. There are numerous instances of this occurring without any exceptions. Americans overwhelmingly view Biden as the culprit in all these major crises. He cannot legitimately win, nor can anyone his party may replace him with.
Matt Kane graduated from Stony Brook University with a Bachelor’s degree in political science. His work has been posted by President Trump, and published by RealClearPolitics and AMAC. Follow on Truth Social: @MattKane X: @MattKaneUSA
Image: Public Domain
Ketanji Brown Jackson Concerned First Amendment ‘Hamstringing the Government’
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said Monday that she was concerned that the First Amendment was “hamstringing the government in significant ways, in the most important time periods.”
Jackson addressed Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga, whose state joined Missouri in suing the federal government over its attempts to censor speech on social media platforms during the coronavirus pandemic, ostensibly for public health reasons.
Jackson had earlier presented a hypothetical situation in which social media platforms were allowing a dangerous trend to circulate in which children were encouraged to jump out of windows “at increasing elevations.” She asked whether government authorities could not “encourage social media platforms to take down the information that is instigating this problem.”
Aguiñaga suggested that the government could use the “bully pulpit” to push back against the content of the information, but could not call the social media platforms to encourage them, or coerce them, to take down the information.
Jackson objected, saying that it was not enough to say that the government could post its own speech. There were situations, she suggested, in which the government could “encourage or require this kind of censorship” necessary for public safety.
Conservatives have objected to the White House calling on social media companies to suppress information — such as skepticism about vaccines, or political speech about election integrity.
The case is Murthy v. Missouri, No. 23A243, in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the new biography, Rhoda: ‘Comrade Kadalie, You Are Out of Order’. He is also the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
Media Research Center: Google Interfered in 41 U.S. Elections over 16 Years
A new study by the Media Research Center alleges that Google has repeatedly interfered in U.S. elections, favoring leftist candidates and suppressing conservative voices.
Google, the ultra-woke tech giant that dominates online search and advertising, has been accused of a staggering pattern of election interference spanning over 16 years and 41 separate instances, according to a bombshell report from the Media Research Center (MRC). The study, conducted by MRC’s Free Speech America division, levels severe allegations against the Silicon Valley giant, claiming it has systematically utilized its immense technological prowess to sway electoral outcomes in favor of left-leaning candidates.
“MRC researchers have found 41 times where Google interfered in elections over the last 16 years, and its impact has surged dramatically, making it evermore harmful to democracy. In every case, Google harmed the candidates – regardless of party – who threatened its left-wing candidate of choice,” asserted Dan Schneider, vice president of MRC Free Speech America, and Gabriela Pariseau, the division’s editor.
Breitbart’s Google search traffic on Joe Biden flatlined months before the 2020 election.
The study cites a litany of apparent infractions, ranging from algorithmic manipulation to outright censorship. Among the most egregious claims are allegations that Google favored Barack Obama over his Republican rivals John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012, refused to rectify a derogatory “Google bomb” smearing Rick Santorum during the 2012 GOP primaries, and excluded potentially damaging autofill results for Hillary Clinton in 2016 while not extending the same courtesy to Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders.
Moreover, the researchers assert that Google disabled Tulsi Gabbard’s ad account during the 2020 Democratic debates, suppressed negative coverage of Joe Biden, concealed most Republican campaign websites in 2022’s competitive Senate races, and is actively aiding Biden’s 2024 campaign by “burying in its search results the campaign websites of every one of his significant opponents.”
NEW YORK, NY – NOVEMBER 07: Rep. Tulsi Gabbard talks with SiriusXM’s “Breitbart News Daily” at SiriusXM Studios on November 7, 2019 in New York City. (Photo by Cindy Ord/Getty Images for SiriusXM)
The authors of the study allege that this pattern of misconduct extends far beyond mere isolated incidents. “Utilizing the many tools in its arsenal, Google aided those who most closely aligned with its leftist values from election cycle to election cycle since as far back as the 2008 presidential election. Meanwhile, it targeted for censorship those candidates who posed the most serious threat,” they wrote, accusing the company of making election interference “an organizational mission.”
Supporting these claims, the study cites research from Dr. Robert Epstein, who concluded that Google’s algorithm likely shifted at least 2.6 million votes toward Hillary Clinton in 2016, while its “results and get-out-the-vote reminders favored Democrats and shifted the 2020 election results by at least 6 million votes.”
Google has adamantly refuted the allegations, asserting it has implemented robust safeguards to ensure unbiased and accurate search results. “There is absolutely nothing new here – just a recycled list of baseless, inaccurate complaints that have been debunked by third parties and many that failed in the courts,” a Google spokesperson told Fox News Digital, adding, “We have a clear business incentive to keep everyone using our products, so we have no desire to make them biased or inaccurate.”
Read more at MRC Free Speech here.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship.
would joe biden have been elected if big tech had not censored/deleted info on the biden crime family???
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill: Big Tech Censorship Case Heads to U.S. Supreme Court
Ronald Reagan famously said, “the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” When it comes to freedom of speech, that could not be more true.
One hundred and three pages of fact findings in district court, supported by five hundred and ninety-one footnotes, demonstrate a sprawling campaign of “unrelenting pressure from the most powerful office in the world” to “bend [social-media platforms] to the government’s will.” The Biden administration, however, claims that these platforms aggressively censored American voices because of Biden’s persuasive “eloquence,” rather than its threats and coercion.
While the White House insisted that social media platforms view themselves as “partners,” on the same “team,” and benefiting from the government’s “help,” those same officials were subjecting the platforms to relentless abuse, accusations, and blatant threats. Of course, this abusive relationship between Big Government and Big Tech didn’t begin this way. It was a slow burn starting as early 2017, when the FBI began coordinating secret meetings in Silicon Valley with content-moderation officers across seven platforms. Even then, the platforms were threatened with “legislation” if they did not censor more, with encrypted lists demanding mass-censorship flooding their inboxes.
This soon escalated to more aggressive practices. By 2018, CISA, or the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, was highlighting “disinformation” from state and local officials to be censored across platforms, and in 2020, the “Election Integrity Partnership” was launched — a colossal mass-surveillance and mass-censorship project that entangled government agencies, the Stanford Internet Observatory, and social media platforms into an Orwellian knot. In time, this would be rebranded as “The Virality Project,” with the capability to monitor tens of millions of social media “engagements” per week and spur extensive censorship.
By the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, this shadowy Ministry of Truth had completely embedded itself into the very fabric of our digital communications. As a result, it wasn’t difficult for President Biden to double down on such an insidious system, one conveniently engineered for “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.” Like water carving into rock, the unrelenting pressure from the “highest (and I mean highest) levels of the White House” proved too much for these tech companies to bear, with one hand offering them a carrot for compliance and the other threatening the complete annihilation of their business model. One by one, they folded to pressure from the Biden White House, responding with “total compliance,” even when it meant censoring truthful information that did not violate existing platform policies.
U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty of Louisiana granted an historic injunction in response to our 2022 lawsuit Louisiana and Missouri v. Biden on July 4, 2023. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed it — twice. Both courts have confirmed that the government’s coordinated campaign to censor domestic speech through private institutions violates the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans. Yet the Biden administration continues to unapologetically coerce platforms into censorship to this day, resulting in an oppressive editorial power that affects every American.
Biden’s attorneys have also made it clear that this administration has no intention of ceasing its unconstitutional conduct. Instead, they’ve expressed the firm intention to continue. That is why this case at the U.S. Supreme Court is so important to our nation. These censorship efforts were never vague or abstract but extremely specific, right down to individual speakers and posts flagged for “misinformation” or “disinformation” because they dared to criticize the government’s narrative. But the government does not have the power to secretly distort the marketplace of ideas or actively manipulate public discourse to suit its needs. Moreover, “a state may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish” (Norwood v. Harrison).
Our limited discovery has uncovered extensive suppression of speech that goes against the fundamental nature of American liberty. For our government, its institutions, or its officials to actively censor protected speech strikes at the core of who we are as citizens of a free nation with a government created by the people, for the people.
I invite you to listen to our oral argument on March 18, where evidence rather than Orwellian “eloquence” will be front and center.
Liz Murrill is the Attorney General of Louisiana. She previously served as the state’s Solicitor General and has been with this case from the beginning. The case is Murthy v. Missouri, No. 23-411 in the Supreme Court of the United States.
AMERICA SHOULD AS THE BANKSTERS' RENT BOY ERIC HOLDER WHAT HE, OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN DID FOR BLACK AMERICA. ABSOLUTELY NADA!
Holder: Media Will Change Coverage and That’ll Help Biden Win
On Friday’s broadcast of HBO’s “Real Time,” former Attorney General Eric Holder commented on President Joe Biden’s poll numbers by stating that “as the media turns its attention to making this a binary choice between a person who’s got some age and cognitive issues — that would be Trump — against somebody who has actually accomplished a lot, I think we’ll do just fine.”
Host Bill Maher asked, “What do you make of the fact that the Democrats, by every poll I read, are, I would just say, losing their base? If you look at non-white working-class voters, there has been a 61-point shift, that’s an incredible amount, from 2012, that’s in twelve years. Obama, in 2012…I think won it by 67 points, that demographic. Biden won it by 48. Now he’s only up by six. What’s going on there?”
Holder answered, “I think, first off, you’re measuring March against November. We’re looking at where people are right now, I think you’ll probably see a movement with regard to working-class people of all races towards Biden by the time you get to November. You’re also comparing an extremely — an unbelievably popular African American running for the first time and who really galvanized people in all strata of life. And so, I think, in some ways, that’s not a fair comparison. But I think we should not be too alarmed by these March polls, you’ve got to take them into consideration. But March is a fundamentally different month than October and November, and we’ll see where these things turn out when we get to that part of the calendar year.”
Holder continued, “There’s work to be done, but I’m actually optimistic that, if we stay committed, focused, and as the media turns its attention to making this a binary choice between a person who’s got some age and cognitive issues — that would be Trump — against somebody who has actually accomplished a lot, I think we’ll do just fine. And what you said in the monologue was really good, though, Trump’s popularity rating is higher now than it ever was during his presidency. It’s like, hey, America, remember? … People, they’re saying, are you better off now than you were four years ago? You’re damn right we are. So, let’s not lose sight of the chaos, the corruption, and all the negative things that Donald Trump meant and put a good man back in the White House.”
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett
On Friday’s broadcast of HBO’s “Real Time,” former Attorney General Eric Holder commented on President Joe Biden’s poll numbers by stating that “as the media turns its attention to making this a binary choice between a person who’s got some age and cognitive issues — that would be Trump — against somebody who has actually accomplished a lot, I think we’ll do just fine.”
Host Bill Maher asked, “What do you make of the fact that the Democrats, by every poll I read, are, I would just say, losing their base? If you look at non-white working-class voters, there has been a 61-point shift, that’s an incredible amount, from 2012, that’s in twelve years. Obama, in 2012…I think won it by 67 points, that demographic. Biden won it by 48. Now he’s only up by six. What’s going on there?”
Holder answered, “I think, first off, you’re measuring March against November. We’re looking at where people are right now, I think you’ll probably see a movement with regard to working-class people of all races towards Biden by the time you get to November. You’re also comparing an extremely — an unbelievably popular African American running for the first time and who really galvanized people in all strata of life. And so, I think, in some ways, that’s not a fair comparison. But I think we should not be too alarmed by these March polls, you’ve got to take them into consideration. But March is a fundamentally different month than October and November, and we’ll see where these things turn out when we get to that part of the calendar year.”
Holder continued, “There’s work to be done, but I’m actually optimistic that, if we stay committed, focused, and as the media turns its attention to making this a binary choice between a person who’s got some age and cognitive issues — that would be Trump — against somebody who has actually accomplished a lot, I think we’ll do just fine. And what you said in the monologue was really good, though, Trump’s popularity rating is higher now than it ever was during his presidency. It’s like, hey, America, remember? … People, they’re saying, are you better off now than you were four years ago? You’re damn right we are. So, let’s not lose sight of the chaos, the corruption, and all the negative things that Donald Trump meant and put a good man back in the White House.”
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett
Sen. J.D. Vance Files Brief in Ohio Lawsuit Against Google
Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) filed a brief in favor of Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost’s case against Google, arguing the big tech platform should be regulated like a common carrier, Breitbart News has learned exclusively.
Vance’s brief in the case encourages the court of common pleas to give the case a full hearing and explains the legal rationale for Ohio’s case.
The Ohio populist’s brief is in support of Yost’s motion for summary judgment and to oppose Google’s motion to dismiss the case.
In his brief, Vance calls out Google’s “hypocrisy,” as the big tech platform claims in varying legal cases that it is sometimes a “neutral platform” and other cases it is not a utility because Google search result webpages are “Google’s own creation or selection.” He wrote:
Whether this is true or not—and it is not—Google is playing fast and loose with the facts. Google has claimed the exact opposite about its search service in other cases and before other courts. When seeking to limit its liability for user content under Section 230 of the Communications Act, it has asserted that its search services are “neutral tools,” Google Rep. Mem., 2017 WL 3188006, Gonzalez v. Google, 282 F.Supp.3d 1150 (N.D. Cal. 2017), that are solely “information provided by another.” Google Br., 2018 WL 3496264, at *3, Marshall’s Locksmith Service, Inc.v. Google, 925 F.3d 1263 (D.C.Cir. 2019).
Indeed, this hypocrisy has led at least one federal judge to conclude it is “a fair point” that Google is judicially estopped from claiming that “the blind operation of ‘neutral tools’” [in its algorithms and other sorting techniques] is actually “editorial discretion.” NetChoice v. Paxton, 49 F.4th 439, 467–68 (5th Cir. 2022), cert. granted in part, 144 S. Ct. 477 (2023). In short, Google cannot claim that there are no factual questions about whether its services are susceptible to common carrier regulation suitable for resolution at this stage of litigation—because at the very least, this Court must determine which version of the facts about search engines Google actually asserts. [Emphasis added]
Amicus Brief by Breitbart News on Scribd
Vance argues that Google operates in many ways like a common carrier, saying “its functions are essentially the same as any communications network: it connects people by transmitting their words and exchanging their messages. It functions just like an old telephone switchboard, but rather than connect people with cables and electromagnetic circuits, Google uses indices created through data analysis. As such, common carrier regulation is appropriate under Ohio law.”
This follows a May 2022 ruling that Yost’s lawsuit against Google, which labels the tech giant a common carrier subject to special regulations and litigation, can proceed.
Vance and the Claremont Institute filed in September 2021 an amicus brief in support of this case against Google.
Common carriers are strictly regulated about who they can deny service to. Common carriers include utilities and telecommunications companies.
“Courts have held that infringing on a private actor’s speech by requiring that actor to host another person’s speech does not always violate the First Amendment,” wrote Ohio County Court Judge James P. Schuck wrote in his ruling. “There are several examples in which private companies involved in mass communications were prohibited from censorship.”
Professor Adam Candeub, who led the Trump administration’s efforts to curb tech censorship, told Breitbart News at the time that this was a welcome ruling.
“The court recognized that the First Amendment does not prevent reasonable anti-discrimination requirements on companies that hold themselves out as transmitters of speech,” Candeub explained.
The case is State of Ohio v. Google in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, No. 21 CV H 06 0274
Sean Moran is a policy reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.
Biden’s cyber-mess flying under the radar
Joe Biden’s presidency has hit new lows in 2024. Despite what many media outlets and talking heads on the left wanted to portray as an “energetic” and “fiery” State of the Union address last week, most Americans were not impressed by the speech, as the customary post-SOTU polling spike that most presidents enjoy hasn’t been there for Joe Biden.
In fact, multiple polls released in the days since the speech have gone in the opposite direction for Biden. According to the Yahoo News/YouGov poll, Biden’s approval rating went from 40% prior to the speech to 39% this week. This increasing dissatisfaction with the current president was echoed in polling conducted by FiveThirtyEight, where, prior to the SOTU, Biden held a 38% approval rating on March 6 vs. a 37% approval rating on March 12.
The speech itself was a clinic in Beltway gaslighting, with Biden making a number of questionable to outright dishonest claims related to job growth, inflation, and so many other issues of concern to Americans.
On job growth, Biden’s claim to have created “15 million new jobs” in three years fails to acknowledge the fact that about 12 million of those jobs can and should be classified as post-COVID “Return-to-Work” jobs that were actually created by his predecessor, President Donald Trump.
On the topic of inflation, Biden actually told the joint session of Congress that the United States had achieved the “lowest in the world.” But in reality, the United States is experiencing higher inflation than a number of industrialized nations and new reports show that the rate has actually ticked upward.
Despite all the misleading chest-pounding during the address, one major issue that President Biden mostly stayed away from was America’s crumbling cybersecurity infrastructure. This was most likely by design, as the current administration has failed to distinguish itself as a global leader in the cybersphere.
Twenty twenty-three was a tough enough year for the U.S. in dealing with cyber events, with ransomware attacks, intrusive browser hijackers, and countless other threats compromising devices deployed for use in both the private and public sectors. But the first few months of 2024 have seen a rash of attacks against critical sectors, including health care, telecom, and state and local governments.
These attacks come at a time where the cyber landscape has changed tremendously, with major changes at the top for tech giant Microsoft, as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission ushering in a new era of forced private sector compliance regarding cyber events.
One of the more critical attacks has been the cyber-attack against Change Healthcare. The health care technology giant manages the medical records for roughly one third of American patients and manages billions of health care transactions annually. As of mid-March, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has launched an investigation into the attack, due to the “unprecedented magnitude of the cyberattack.”
The Change Healthcare attack represents one of the largest data hauls ever accessed in the history of cyber-crime. The reason for this kind of attack boils down to one simple motive: money. On the “dark web,” where the personal data of victimized Americans is bought and sold every day, medical records sell can fetch as much as $60 per person, compared to $15 for a Social Security number or $3 for credit card information.
Additionally, warnings issued earlier this year from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the FBI, and the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC), highlighted new threats against municipal and county governments, emergency services, educational institutions, public health care facilities, and critical infrastructure related to the Phobos ransomware gang.
It has become apparent that the Biden administration is handling our digital borders as poorly as they have handled out physical southern border with Mexico, and the best advice we can take here is to become as vigilant as we possibly can when dealing with our own personal online security. Educating ourselves regarding new attack vectors that include phony security pop-up scams and backdoors, which negate normal authentication procedures to access a system, is critical.
Other than that, there really is little we can do to prevent the major data breaches that continue to afflict major data warehouses, but with commonsense precautions, we can make 2024 a safer year online as we hope for a much-needed leadership change in 2025.
Julio Rivera is a business and political strategist, cybersecurity researcher, and a political commentator and columnist. His writing, which is focused on cybersecurity and politics, is regularly published by many of the largest news organizations in the world.
Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.
Barely-there Joe Biden and his vindictive Attorney General Merrick Garland haven’t weaponized the justice system to persecute conservatives, freedom-lovers, Christians, Trump, and his voters; they have implemented “supportive framework conditions” that helpfully disarm, censor, and imprison any American who resists the Deep State. Yes siree, governing is easy when the Ethics Council condones property confiscation, coercion, and controlled speech!
Globalism Thrives on Crisis
Globalists know that nothing drives public policy so much as the fear of impending death. Nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles may have scared the snot out of anyone living through the Cold War, but they were (and still are) the gifts that keep on giving for the military-industrial complex and national security surveillance State. The more catastrophic the consequences of any perceived threat, the more likely that otherwise skeptical human beings will hand over their freedoms in exchange for the elusive promise of personal security. Political systems specialize in exploiting this “Save Me!” impulse for maximum leverage. “Looming apocalypse” is Big Government’s best salesman every year.
Ghost stories about “global warming” work the same way. If voters can be convinced that their economic freedom is leading to humanity’s extinction, then they will accept costly regulations and “green energy”-induced inflation. If they can be brainwashed into believing that hydrocarbon energy is evil, then they will actively protest for a future with intermittent yet expensive electric power. If they can be deluded into thinking that only politicians and central bankers can save the planet, then they will embrace communism in order to fight “climate change.” Given the fact that Earth’s climate is always naturally changing — whether humans are alive to notice or not — governments’ success in conditioning gullible people to fear every change in the weather has been remarkably effective in creating voluntary slaves.
It’s also no surprise that UN Secretary-General António Guterres and other doomsayer charlatans are now hyperventilating about “global boiling.” Generations who were told they would die decades ago have learned to discount apocalyptic warnings. Human experience creates a natural immunity to bullsh*t. Conversely, totalitarianism succeeds only when society’s level of anxiety can be ratcheted up well above eleventy! That’s why every iteration of the so-called “climate emergency” must sound more scary than the last. It’s also why each new season of “Climate Change: the Coming Armageddon” targets children who have never seen old episodes of the boring series. It may be the longest running television program of all time, but ignorant youths — who cannot imagine that their governments would ever lie to them — fall for the dying planet horror show every time.
This is the kind of madness that “green” false prophets perpetrate upon unsuspecting peoples — stoking irrational fears in a misanthropic and Machiavellian quest for raw power. Twentieth-century totalitarians also came to power by spreading madness and inflaming irrational fears. Whereas Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao obsessed over foreign ideas, capitalist leanings, religious beliefs, and racial impurities, today’s globalists obsess over hydrocarbons, “white supremacy,” and “hate” speech. Future generations will see no distinction. Just like the monsters of the past, today’s Deep State agents seize power by manufacturing emergencies. Dictators always arrive on triumphal chariots that run on lies.
The German Deep State is similar to the American Deep State — in that both love to lecture the world about “democracy” and “freedom” while censoring conservatives’ speech, criminalizing political dissent, spewing propaganda, and manipulating elections. Both also have a penchant for creating committees and agencies that engage in behaviors they pretend to police — disinformation boards that spread lies, humanitarian aid groups that foment war, pro-democracy coalitions that seek to ban political groups and public debate. For the German and American Deep States, language is a weapon for deceiving the people.
In one particularly laughable example, German law mandates the operation of an Ethics Council — an independent body of “experts” — that seems dedicated to finding ways to justify the government’s unethical behaviors. How do you convince people to accept unscientific lockdowns and experimental “vaccines”? Tell them that a nonpartisan crew of credentialed “experts” has checked for ethical landmines and determined that everything’s hunky-dory. A few weeks ago, the morality Star Chamber published an opinion about “Climate Justice” that lays the groundwork for a future when all German activity will be strictly monitored for carbon-rationing compliance: “On grounds of justice, it can be morally required to contribute to measures to tackle climate change. If one’s own exercise of freedom interferes in an unjust manner with the freedom and welfare of others or of future generations, for example through consumption that is harmful to the climate, the authorities may intervene with restrictions of freedom.”
As with all Deep State initiatives that say one thing while doing its opposite, Germany’s Ethics Council promises the public that it is wholly opposed to suspending “democratic freedoms” but encourages the government to create “supportive framework conditions” — including carbon taxes, personal emissions limits, product bans, and “compensatory payments” to “ongoing neo-colonial dependencies” — that will nudge Germans to do the right thing. Ahh, nothing says freedom like new taxes, forced redistribution of wealth, regulatory kicks to the groin, financial blackmail, and total personal surveillance! Just because the government holds a gun to the back of your head while you make decisions doesn’t mean you are any less free — the unethical Ethics Council says so!
There’s something so spectacularly German about the morality police redefining totalitarianism as merely “supportive framework conditions.” Who could argue against a “supportive framework”? It’s the kind of linguistic chicanery that other Western nations will readily mimic. Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau didn’t confiscate the bank accounts of Freedom Convoy protesters in order to quell dissent and chill free speech; he was merely creating “supportive framework conditions” for their abject submission. Australia and New Zealand didn’t set up Stasi roadblocks, checkpoints, and involuntary detainment camps during the Great COVID Hoax; they simply constructed a “supportive framework” for a functioning police State. Barely-there Joe Biden and his vindictive Attorney General Merrick Garland haven’t weaponized the justice system to persecute conservatives, freedom-lovers, Christians, Trump, and his voters; they have implemented “supportive framework conditions” that helpfully disarm, censor, and imprison any American who resists the Deep State. Yes siree, governing is easy when the Ethics Council condones property confiscation, coercion, and controlled speech!
At the end of the day, globalism thrives on crisis. It is a political philosophy in perpetual search of apocalyptic threats that can be used as expedient pretexts for justifying why a small cabal of financial titans and global elites should exercise total control over local communities. Crisis is its brand, its currency, and its product. For globalism to persist, no crisis can ever be solved unless a new one is on its way.
The inherently destructive nature of globalism has left the public in a permanent state of anticipatory dread. Roughly two-thirds of Americans not only expect a third world war to break out within the next decade but also believe nuclear conflagration is inevitable. The idea that the American Deep State will instigate some kind of “false flag” incident prior to the 2024 election is discussed as broadly among well-known public figures as it is among ordinary commenters online. Catherine Herridge, Ron Paul, Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson, and General Mike Flynn have all expressed concern that an unforeseen “Black Swan” event will occur before the end of the year. Flynn says forthrightly that globalists will conclude, “Look, there’s no way in the world that [Biden] can win a legitimate, fair election, so let’s not have one.” And “in order to not have one,” the Deep State will “create the conditions” to produce that “outcome.”
That nuclear war, election rigging, and “Black Swan” disasters are spoken of so matter-of-factly reflects an almost fatalistic consensus that everything will soon fall apart. In other words, globalism has largely succeeded in cultivating a pervasive expectation of our impending social death. That’s an astonishing indictment of the path Western leaders have forged over the last century. As they have burned the world to the ground, their legacy is general misery. For free and happy people to live, globalism must surely die.
Image via Picryl.
JOE BIDEN'S GESTOPO MAN IS GAMER LAWYER MERRICK GARLAND WHO IS IN CHARAGE OF PUSHING THE BIDEN FASCIST REGIME AND PURSUNG BIDEN'S MANY POLITICAL AND NON-POLITICAL ENEMIES - THINK PRO-LIFERS!
It certainly worked for Biden in 2020, and his Attorney General, Merrick Garland, arguably the most corrupt and weaponized in history—that’s saying something with Obama’s “wingman,” Eric Holder in the running—is working hard to keep that organization up and running:
The U.S. government document is entitled “The Attorney General’s Guidelines on Federal Bureau of Investigation Undercover Operations.”
The FBI's Otherwise Illegal Activity
How deeply is law enforcement interfering in the daily lives of American citizens?
For example, it was recently reported that the FBI labeled Americans who “support the biological basis for sex and gender distinction as potential domestic terrorists.”
Then what? What does the FBI, and those who cooperate with the FBI, do to such Americans?
Does the FBI label FBI employees who support biology as potential terrorists? Or, is the FBI saying that no FBI employees support the biological basis for sex and gender distinction?
The FBI and local police keep their specific actions, methods, and technologies mostly secret; thus, one cannot say with certainty what occurs after the FBI labels a person as a potential domestic terrorist.
Americans might study the history of the FBI and local police cooperating with the FBI for hints about what might occur after being labeled as a potential domestic terrorist. One might closely study the “Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, 1975-76.” The secret actions of the FBI and police cooperating with the FBI were summarized as follows:
...intelligence activity in the past decades has, all too often, exceeded the restraints on the exercise of governmental power which are imposed by our country's Constitution, laws, and traditions […]
Intelligence activity […] is generally covert. It is concealed from its victims and is seldom described in statutes or explicit executive orders. The victim may never suspect that his misfortunes are the intended result of activities undertaken by his government, and accordingly may have no opportunity to challenge the actions taken against him. (Pages 2-3)
Government employees have harmed Americans – caused them “misfortunes” – in the past. American citizens did not even know such harm was intentionally done to them, nor did they know it was government employees who secretly harmed them. Would current government employees do such things?
Now, if one is familiar with the above Senate Committee from the 1970s, one might respond by saying something like, “yeah, but the FBI was going after gangsters, druggies, commies, and groups who were racist against Caucasians. They were going after some murderers. I’m not in any of those groups, I just believe a man is a man and want to watch basketball!”
It is not clear how to convince such people other than by trying to argue from common sense.
There is the phenomenon of government officials, particularly those in fear of losing their ability to control others, creating a government entity or technology initially described as being good – say, to protect the citizens from terrorists, communists, gangsters, etc.
The government entity employs millions of people, again attempting to convince the citizens that the secret policing entity or technology is a great thing.
After the technology or government entity is fully operational and widespread, and after millions of people are fully dependent on government welfare disguised as government employment in the secret policing entity, then those few people (who could be in another country) in charge of the government then are able to control the masses.
Again, it is common sense: some government officials try to convince citizens something is good (surveillance technologies, secret police entity, etc.) and then use it to control and harm the citizens.
While the specific actions and technologies of the FBI and other secretly operating entities are mostly not publicized, there is one U.S. government document which suggests possible actions of the FBI.
The U.S. government document is entitled “The Attorney General’s Guidelines on Federal Bureau of Investigation Undercover Operations.”
Those guidelines importantly mention that FBI operations might involve local police or “local law enforcement agency working under the direction and control of the FBI.”
Additionally, the guidelines mention that the FBI is apparently allowed to secretly own and operate businesses and corporations, make “untrue representations” of other peoples’ actions, and engage “in activity having a significant effect on or constituting a significant intrusion into the legitimate operation of a Federal, state, or local governmental entity.”
Does the FBI “engage in activity having a significant effect on” juries, U.S. Congress, the presidency, or the Supreme Court? Does the FBI engage “in activity having a significant effect on or constituting a significant intrusion into the legitimate” national and local elections?
The FBI guidelines apparently also suggest employees and cooperators might “supply falsely sworn testimony or false documentation in any legal or administrative proceeding” and the FBI and others might commit “otherwise illegal activity,” apparently including “violence or physical injury to individuals or a significant risk of financial loss.”
Those guidelines on FBI operations seem to imply that there are many people in cities throughout America employed as secret government operatives who present themselves as everyday citizens but might actually be participating in schemes or “mitigating opportunities.”
Finally, another potential method publicized by the FBI and others is establishing rapport, which means friendly relationship enabling communication, with people they target. FBI wrote that “Building rapport, perhaps, is the most important technique that investigators use,” and government agencies require a “staff of professional officers skilled as conversationalists and rapport developers.”
If there is a national secret police entity in America, those employees might be informed that some of the easiest people for the FBI or local secret police to establish rapport with and thus go after, deceive, and “mitigate” are their own employees or others who cooperate in secret operations, while the employees or cooperators think they are going after someone else. If your boss and co-workers require you to lie to other people, then your boss and co-workers might also lie to you.
Either way, it seems reasonable to suggest that most Americans should be taught and thoroughly study the guidelines on FBI undercover operations.
Image: Federal Bureau of Investigation, via Flickr // PDM 1.0 DEED | public domain
Obviously, Garland and his cronies know exactly what they’re doing. They’re enabling vote fraud, surely to ensure illegal immigrants can vote in the millions to put over the electoral finish line a man most legal Americans know is demented. In the process, they’re insulting America’s poor and black citizens, branding them too stupid to obtain identification necessary for daily life. Reasonable people might call that racist.
It all starts at the top. Joe Biden has made a career out of using the government and the legal system to attack his political enemies. He has the backing of the Justice Department, the FBI, and the IRS. Trump supporters Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, Roger Stone, and Peter Navarro have seen their civil rights disappear. The same goes for the January 6th defendants.
Destroying the American system of justice
Some days I think I must be dreaming. Two deranged “public servants” -- the vindictive New York State attorney general and a leftist judge with a bad haircut -- are being given free rein to subvert our justice system by placing titanic barriers against the Republican nominee’s ability to run for president. What is happening to our country and who will stop it?
How is it possible that someone with Trump’s extraordinary accomplishments can be brought down by two vile and inconsequential persons such as Letitia James and Arthur Engoron? Their lawsuit has the support of, and is the consequence of, the Democratic Party’s efforts to interfere with the 2024 presidential election.
To begin with, James’ fraud case against Trump is a farce. There is no crime and no victim. No one has been harmed. It is purely a weaponization of the legal system for political ends. As Shark Tank investor Kevin O’Leary has observed, what Trump is alleged to have done -- overvalue his real estate properties when applying for a bank loan -- is normal business practice all over the globe. The bank made money and is anxious to do business with him again.
Thanks to a publicity-hungry, overtly anti-Trump judge, James’ phony indictment has been backed up with an unheard-of $460-million judgment. And they want it now. No one has that kind of cash floating around. Unless he comes up with an impossible-to-obtain bond, Trump is precluded from his right to appeal.
Without waiting for the outcome of an appeal, James wants to seize Trump’s real estate holdings. Adding insult to injury, Judge Engoron has ordered a court to oversee the Trump organization for a minimum of three years. This is the Soviet-style textbook for “How to Take Down a Billionaire.”
If the Democrats can get away with this partisan assault on someone like Donald Trump, imagine what they will do to you and me in pursuit of their leftist policies. The American public is no longer protected by due process and the rule of law. The rule has just changed to, “Whatever the Democrats want.”
It all starts at the top. Joe Biden has made a career out of using the government and the legal system to attack his political enemies. He has the backing of the Justice Department, the FBI, and the IRS. Trump supporters Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, Roger Stone, and Peter Navarro have seen their civil rights disappear. The same goes for the January 6th defendants.
There is a glimmer of hope. The James/Engoron anti-Trump judgment could be overturned by the New York State Appellate Division. It would be a massive miscarriage of justice if it is not overturned, but given the Democratic Party’s hold on New York judges and juries, the judgment may be upheld. Even if it is overturned, Trump will have been irreparably harmed by the seizure of his assets.
If the Democrats succeed in destroying Trump, the doors will be open to perverting the legal system as required for the leftist agenda of the Democratic Party. In short, we will have a one-party state and America’s justice system will be history.
Will anyone stop them? “The whole world is watching,” said Kevin O’Leary. “Where are the adults in this crazy narrative? We need an adult in the room. This is the United States of America under siege.”
Ed Brodow is a conservative political commentator and author of two No. 1 Amazon Best Sellers, AMERICA ON ITS KNEES: The Cost of Replacing Trump with Biden, and THE WAR ON WHITES: How Hating White People Became the New National Sport.
Image: Library of Congress
It certainly worked for Biden in 2020, and his Attorney General, Merrick Garland, arguably the most corrupt and weaponized in history—that’s saying something with Obama’s “wingman,” Eric Holder in the running—is working hard to keep that organization up and running:
The DOJ sued DISH network for $3.3 billion but dismissed the suit after its chair donated to Biden
Two sayings are pertinent to this essay. The first is that correlation does not imply causation. Just because two events seem connected doesn’t mean they are. The second is that timing is everything. Think about both as you consider the Department of Justice’s decision to dismiss a massive corporate fraud lawsuit a short time after the corporation’s founder made a sizable donation to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.
DISH Network is an American satellite network. In 2015, the DOJ sued DISH under the False Claims Act. The suit was based on Whistleblower Vermont National Telephone Company, Inc.’s allegation that DISH and its affiliates were allegedly using fraud to get small business discounts for wireless spectrum licenses. As recently as November 2023, a federal judge kept the case alive in the face of DISH’s motion for a judgment on the pleadings (i.e., DISH contended that the DOJ’s complaint contained within it the seeds of its own destruction).
On December 15, 2023, less than one month after the federal court refused to dismiss the DOJ’s suit, one of DISH’s founders, Charlie Ergen, along with his wife, Candy, donated a total of $113,200 to keep Biden in the White House…and, inevitably, to keep his currently constituted Department of Justice in power.
Image: A downed DISH receiver by frankieleon. CC BY 2.0.
On January 10, 2024, only three-and-a-half weeks after Ergen sent his money to Biden, and while the fraud suit was still pending, DISH received $50 million in taxpayer funds when the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration announced an $80 million round of five grants. The other four grantees divided the remaining $30 million in grant money.
A mere two days after the $50 million grant, the attorney for Vermont Telephone, which had triggered the DOJ’s initial action against DISH, complained that the DOJ was putting pressure on Vermont Telephone to enter into “an unethical settlement” or it would dismiss the suit:
The move to dismiss the case scrapped plans to depose the Ergens about their knowledge of the allegedly fraudulent scheme, prompting Vermont Telephone’s attorneys to accuse the Justice Department of political interference.
“[I]t appears that the effect — if not the purpose — of the DOJ’s rush to seek dismissal of this case is to protect Mr. Ergen from being questioned under oath,” Ross wrote in a Feb. 8 letter to the lead DOJ attorneys handling the case, according to a copy reviewed by The Post.
“We do not believe it is a coincidence that Mr. Ergen, his wife (who also is scheduled to be deposed next week), and DISH’s Political Action Committee collectively contributed in excess of $5 million to Democratic candidates and causes between 2008 and 2022,” he added.
“With the upcoming election, this case looks like just the latest example of the DOJ’s two-tiered justice system under which the well-heeled, politically connected are treated one way, while everyone else is treated differently.”
The last item in this chronology is that on March 8, the DOJ moved to dismiss the case. You can read more details about the whole case, from its inception to the motion to dismiss, in this New York Post article. Indeed, the article is worth reading as an expose about how corporate money and politics work in D.C., with most money flowing to Democrats but surprisingly large sums keeping individual Republicans afloat.
As I noted at the start of this post, just because there seems to be a connection between things, that doesn’t mean there is a connection. The chronology suggests that, once Ergen started throwing large sums of money at a sitting president whose re-election campaign is in trouble, that same president told his Department of Justice to lay off his good friend. It could just be, though, that the case has been kicking about for years so that the DOJ decided it was time to unload it because it was hogging resources without any discernable benefit to the American people.
But as always, timing is everything, and the appearance of impropriety can be just as powerful as actual impropriety. We’ve long known that Garland’s DOJ is driven by politics, not principle. Now, we have the strong suggestion that it can be bought, too.
Attorney General Garland promises election lawfare
Who can forget October of 2020, when Joe Biden committed a gaffe? He certainly does that more or less constantly, but this one was a classic, because a gaffe is properly defined as what happens when a politician accidently tells the truth:
‘We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics,’ Biden said in the video.
It certainly worked for Biden in 2020, and his Attorney General, Merrick Garland, arguably the most corrupt and weaponized in history—that’s saying something with Obama’s “wingman,” Eric Holder in the running—is working hard to keep that organization up and running:
Speaking [in March of 2024] to a predominantly African-American crowd at a Black Selma church service, [AG Merrick Garland] said:
The right to vote is still under attack, and that is why the Justice Department is fighting back. We are challenging efforts by states and jurisdictions who implement discriminatory, burdensome, and unnecessary restrictions on access to the ballot, including those related to mail-in voting, the use of drop boxes and voter ID requirements.
No, AG Garland, the right to vote is NOT under attack. Georgia, which passed its reform laws after the 2020 election and invited a boycott of woke companies, including Major League Baseball (which canceled the All-Star game in Atlanta), reported that more voters and more minority voters participated in the 2022 elections than at any time in Georgia history. Even Stacey Abrams, the losing candidate for governor in 2018, who never conceded her defeat and became a media darling, accepted that she lost her rematch against Brian Kemp.
How is it possible the chief law enforcement officer in America doesn’t know drop boxes, refusing to enforce ID laws and mail-in ballots are among the best methods of cheating? Or perhaps he does…
Is it possible AG Garland is unaware of the Supreme Court’s 2008 Crawford .v Marion County Election Board decision? NBC was aware, and disappointed:
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws. [skip]
The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy.
Is it possible AG Garland, and the entire DOJ is unable to use Internet search engines, like the engine that provided the URLs I’ve embedded? Or is it more likely they’re simply ignoring the Supreme Court, which they’ve proved more than willing to do? Not every state has voter ID laws. Is Garland worried there aren’t enough states without them to provide the necessary margin of voter fraud for 2024?
Beyond experience and common, adult, sense, there is substantial evidence drop boxes and mail-on balloting are primary sources of virtually untraceable vote fraud. How can it be Garland and the DOJ Voting Rights Section don’t know that? And if that’s so, if they really are that incompetent, that unaware of human and political nature, how is it there are apparently no other attorneys in the entire DOJ who have not set them straight?
Obviously, Garland and his cronies know exactly what they’re doing. They’re enabling vote fraud, surely to ensure illegal immigrants can vote in the millions to put over the electoral finish line a man most legal Americans know is demented. In the process, they’re insulting America’s poor and black citizens, branding them too stupid to obtain identification necessary for daily life. Reasonable people might call that racist.
Reasonable people might also think our republic is better off if people who can’t get identification, and can’t be bothered to get to the polls on election day, don’t vote. Obviously, people who have legitimate reasons for being unable to be present on election day, like our military serving overseas and the handicapped, must be allowed absentee ballots, but with effective safeguards and verification.
Using taxpayer resources and the power of the federal government to violate Supreme Court decisions and enable vote fraud on a never before imagined scale is among the most un-American, anti-republican acts of a thoroughly corrupt administration. Reasonable people might call that tyrannical. And they’d be right, and consistent. They’re absolutely perpetuating “the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.”
That’s great for “our democracy—a permanent, one-party, Democrat/socialist/communist state, but terrible for our constitutional, representative republic. I wonder if Garland has heard about that?
Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, life-long athlete, firearm instructor, retired police officer and high school and college English teacher. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.
Graphic: X screenshot
Ketanji Brown Jackson is a fascist who should be removed from the Court
Ketanji Brown Jackson, is concerned the First Amendment is “hamstringing the government.”
That’s a 5-alarm fire of a pull-quote from a sitting Supreme Court justice, and she should absolutely be impeached and removed from the Court over it. I’m as serious as a heart attack here. Nearly every sentence of this single thought of hers adds up to textbook fascism, (a hybrid economic system in which the private economy exists but under strict state regulations, and must give way to the national interest, which is whatever the government says it is.) So, let’s go. First the full quote, directly from the SCOTUS transcript, followed by seven handpicked doozies worth analyzing:
JUSTICE JACKSON: So my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods. I mean, what would -- what would you have the government do? I’ve heard you say a couple times that the government can post its own speech, but in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not safe, don’t do it, is not going to get it done. And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. So can you help me? Because I’m really -- I’m really worried about that because you’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government’s perspective and you’re saying that the government can’t interact with the source of those problems.
“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government….”
Really? Your biggest concern is how the First Amendment hamstrings… the federal government? No, honey. No. Your biggest concern should be the federal government hamstringing the First Amendment. You have it exactly backwards. The “charter of negative liberties” is exactly that for a reason, intentionally crafted to restrict the government’s ability to deprive the people of their essential liberties. The entire point of the Bill of Rights is to “hamstring” the federal government; how does she not understand this down to her bones?
Also, what do we not understand about censoring ideas here? Suppressing tweets is the new book burning, and how’d that work out?
2. “What would you have the government do?”
Are you kidding? Government has the biggest microphone imaginable to make her case; granted, it’s hard to make a case against the very legal foundation of the United States, but persuasion is a big part of the job one asks for when one asks to do the people’s work. Because what comes after persuasion? That’s right: force. So you’d better be good at the former. that’s the job she asked for when she asked to do the people’s work. Now if it’s compelling, the people will heed it; if it’s not, then it’s a weak argument. Don’t ask for such an awesome responsibility if you’re not up to the task, and definitely don’t ask for it if your first impulse is to suffocate it until it stops bothering you.
3. “In my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not safe, don’t do it, is not going to get it done.”
That’s what parents are for. The end.
4. “Some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country….”
Yes, from each other. From murder and mayhem. Not from ourselves. I’m a born-free American. I don’t need you to babysit me. I’m perfectly capable of sorting through information to make a reasoned decision. The solution to “dangerous” speech is more speech, not less, as Justice Brandeis so famously intoned when he said, “To expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied [to speech one does not like] is more speech, not enforced silence.”
Image created by author using public domain photo.
5. “You seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information.”
Damned right. Government is force. The simplest ask from the federal government to (any company, but in this case) a social media company to police opinions it does not like carries with it an implicit — if not explicit — “or else.” How does this have to be explained? To anyone?
6. “I’m really worried… you’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government’s perspective…”
Good. When the government feels threatened, when it fears the people, there is Liberty. And once again, we have to notice her baseline impulse is to protect government—not you, not me, and not the people. It’s not like the Feds are lacking any kind of influence whatsoever or at risk of being tyrannized by... tweets. Opinions. Good grief.
7. “You’re saying that the government can’t interact with the source of those problems.”
Girlfriend’s got the “source” wrong. It’s not social media; it’s us. In her mind, whether she knows it or not, or would admit it or not, we, the people, are “the source of those problems.” Us and all our messy Liberty. Talking to each other. Debating. Arguing. Over this, over that. Ew. No wonder she’s upset.
Sarcasm aside, that really is her problem here. We the people. Until social media came along, the institutional left had near monolithic operational control of every information dispensing organ in the country: television, print, movies, education, and the federal bureaucracy. If they wanted to propagandize us, they could quite literally go full court press, with every quarter singing from the same songbook. But with Twitter and Facebook? Our opinions could be widely shared in a nationwide town square, and maybe even go viral—the left couldn’t have that!
So what did they do? Well, as was revealed in The Twitter Files, the Feds had a 21st Century “bat phone” they could pick up anytime they saw a post they didn’t like to “encourage” and “pressure” those agreeable companies into doing the government’s bidding. Tony Soprano would’ve loved that bat phone.
Because that’s textbook mafia fascism. For reals. The real thing. F-A-S-C-I-S-M. How KBJ does not understand this, all of this — down to her bones — is breathtaking.
Americans, freedom-loving Americans, who have been properly raised to understand our Constitution and cherish our inherent liberties would never, ever, in a million years, lament that the First Amendment had “hamstrung” government.
I would suggest that Ms. Jackson be brought in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee and asked to clarify her views on the First Amendment, but we don’t want to set an abusable precedent. We don’t want justices afraid to ask questions during argument, and we don’t want them hauled before the very committee which was supposed to have vetted them thoroughly simply for asking one — albeit alarming — question.
However (and this is a big however), when that question exposes a foundational, fundamental, bedrock ignorance, dare we say inversion, of our first, most cherished principle, our soul’s right to breathe, that’s absolutely impeachable.
They’ll never do it of course. The entire Republican conference put together lacks the testicular fortitude of one Nancy Pelosi all by her diminutive self. So I guess all we can do is wag a finger and say shame on the Senate for not doing the due diligence we just did here. They could have mined her thoughts on every amendment. They didn’t. It’s too late for that, but it needs to be noted, for the record, that they gave us a Supreme Court justice whose first impulse is to worry about the federal government, and since they won’t remove her, every senator who voted for her must be removed, held accountable to us, those unruly, opinionated people.
Image: Public domain.
Half of Democrat Voters Say the News Is Being ‘Dictated’ by the Biden Campaign
Republican voters see it. Independent voters see it. And now, even half of Democrat voters agree that the news media are simply regurgitating Pres. Joe Biden’s talking points, a new survey reveals.
In a national poll of U.S. likely voters, conducted March 18-20, Rasmussen asked the following question:
“How likely is it that the major news media’s political coverage is dictated by talking points from the Biden campaign?”
Nearly two-thirds (63%) of all voters say it’s at least “somewhat likely” that Biden is dictating the contents of political news being fed to Americans, including 42% who consider it to be “very” likely.
Sixty-one (61%) of Republican voters say it’s “very” likely that Biden’s dictating the news – and more than three in four (78%) call it at least “somewhat” likely.
Independent voters also see Biden pulling the media’s puppet strings, with 61% calling it likely and 42% saying it’s “very” likely.
But, even the supporters of Biden’s talking points, Democrat voters, see that news coverage is being skewed in their favor, with half (50%) agreeing that media are mouthpieces for Biden. What’s more, a quarter of Democrat voters actually say that it’s “very likely” Biden is dictating the news they receive.
Still, Democrat voters don’t seem overly concerned that media are pushing political propaganda.
While 60% of all voters agree (30% “strongly”) that media “truly are the enemy of the people,” 54% of Democrat voters disagree (36% “strongly”).
CUT AND PASTE YOUTUBE LINKS
WARNING: Billionaires Are Selling ALL Stocks To Build HUGE Survival Bunkers!
YOU HEARD PIG BIDEN AT THE STATE OF THE UNION RANT. WE WANTS TAX PAYERS TO PAY FOR MASS EXTENSION OF WIFI SO ZUCKERUNT CAN EXPAND HIS FACEBOOK EMPIRE ON OUR BACKS!
FUK YOU BRANDO!
BIDEN'S TECH BILLIONAIRES DON'T SEEM TO GET IT! THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY TECH CENSORSHOP. OR ELSE! AND ZUCKERBERG LIVING IN HIS HAWAIAN BUNKER IS NOT GOING TO SAVE HIS FASCIST BIDENITE ASS!
Mark Zuckerberg Is ‘Limiting’ Political Content on Instagram – Here’s How to Turn Off His Filters
Instagram users are expressing frustration as the platform begins automatically restricting political content in their feeds, just months before the 2024 presidential election. Many users report that the political filter has been automatically turned on without asking them. Breitbart News has compiled the steps necessary to turn off Zuckerberg’s latest scheme to help Joe Biden.
Ars Technica reports that in a move that has sparked outrage among users, Instagram has started limiting political content in users’ feeds by default, a significant change that comes just months before the 2024 presidential election. The new policy, announced by Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta on February 9, 2024, aims to reduce the amount of political content unless they explicitly choose to see it. The most troubling aspect is Zuckerberg enabling this filter without asking users if they desire to see political content.
The change affects content mentioning “laws, elections, or social topics” from accounts not followed by users. While Meta claims this decision is based on user feedback, many are questioning the timing and motives behind the move. Independent journalist Jessica Reed Kraus, who has 1.2 million Instagram followers, expressed her concern, stating, “We should all be outraged but this overstep. Censorship during peak campaign months is a direct threat to the [sic] democracy.”
Although Zuckerberg’s Meta has apparently made the political filter a default setting for all users, it can be disabled. Follow the steps below to stop Mark Zuckerberg from deciding what content you see on the Instagram platform.
instagram political settings (Meta)
Here’s how to stop Instagram from limiting political content on your timeline.
- Open the Instagram app on your device.
- Go to your profile by tapping on your profile picture in the bottom right corner.
- Tap on the three horizontal lines in the top right corner to access the menu.
- Select “Settings” from the menu.
- Choose “Privacy” from the settings options.
- Scroll down and tap on “Content preferences.”
- Select “Political content.”
- Choose the “Don’t limit” option to disable the automatic restriction of political content in your feed.
- If the app crashes when attempting to change the setting, try updating the app and running through the process again.
Four years after Mark Zuckerberg directly impacted the 2020 election by spreading “Zuckerbucks” around the nation, it is clear that he is willing to attempt to move mountains for Democrats again in 2024. Breitbart News will continue to document Meta’s actions including guides on how to overcome platform changes timed to impact the election.
Read more at Ars Technica here.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship.
Nolte: Majority Say Media ‘Enemy of the People,’ Parrot Biden Talking Points
A clear majority of Americans agree that the media are “truly the enemy of the people.” That includes 30 percent who strongly agree and 30 percent who somewhat agree.
Only 36 percent disagree.
Yep, the American people are getting red-pilled.
Among black voters, 49(!) percent agree the media are “truly the enemy of the people.” Even 41 percent of Democrats agree. This number should truly worry the corporate media: 61 percent of those aged 18-39 agree. No age group polled higher. The media’s future customers are already on to them.
For those wondering why a majority see the media as the enemy of the people, allow me to explain it this way: they believe that because the media are the enemy of the people. How else are we to look at an institution desperate to censor us, mutilate our kids at the altar of their trans gods, replace us with illegal aliens, open the prisons, meddle in elections, disqualify our candidates from appearing on a ballot, and encourage the assassination of our candidates.
How else are we to look at the people behind this:
- Russia Collusion Hoax
- Hands Up, Don’t Shoot Hoax
- Jussie Smollett Hoax
- Covington KKKids Hoax
- Very Fine People Hoax
- Seven-Hour Gap Hoax
- Russian Bounties Hoax
- Trump Trashes Troops Hoax
- Policemen Killed at Mostly Peaceful January 6 Protest Hoax
- Rittenhouse Hoax
- Eating While Black Hoax
- Border Agents Whipping Illegals Hoax
- NASCAR Noose Hoax
- The Georgia Jim Crow 2.0 Hoax
- Trump Assaulted Secret Service Agents and Grabbed Steering Wheel of Beast Hoax
- MAGA Assaulted Paul Pelosi Hoax
- COVID Lab Leak Theory Is Racist Hoax
- Hunter Biden’s Laptop Is Russian Disinformation Hoax
- Joe Biden Will Never Ban Gas Stoves Hoax
- COVID Deaths are Over-Counted Is a Conspiracy Theory Hoax
- Mass Graves of Native Children in Canada Hoax
- The Trump Killed All the Fish Hoax
- Hamas Hospital Hoax
- John Fetterman Is Healthy Hoax
- If Reelected, Trump Will Execute People Hoax
- The Alfa Bank Hoax
- Libs of TikTok Murdered Non-Binary Teen Hoax
- The Aaron Rodgers Sandy Hook-Truther Hoax
- The “Bloodbath” Hoax
The media hate Normal People. The media lie to us. Therefore, the media are our enemy. Always have been. Some of us have been telling you that for decades. Some of you didn’t listen. Sounds like you’re listening now.
Rasmussen Reports also asked these same 1,114 likely voters between March 18-20 the following: “How likely is it that the major news media’s political coverage is dictated by talking points from the Biden campaign?”
Get a load of this…
63(!) percent say it is “very” (42 percent) and “somewhat” (21 percent) likely the media parrot the Biden campaign’s talking points. Only 29 percent disagree. Only 29 percent!
Among black voters, an astonishing 59 percent agree that Biden’s campaign talking points dictate the media’s political coverage, as did 67 percent of young voters (18-39), and 50 percent of Democrats. Democrats!
In other words, the media are no longer fooling anyone.
Rasmussen also polled on the Bloodbath Hoax. More amazing numbers… Even in our 50/50 country, a clear plurality of 49 percent understood the correct context — that Trump used a well-known economic term (“bloodbath”) to describe the economic turmoil His Fraudulency Joe Biden is creating in the auto industry with his environmental superstitions.
VIDEO: Fake News Freakout! Leftist Media Hoax over Trump’s “Bloodbath” Comment… What Did He Actually Say?
Only 40 percent say they believe Trump’s “bloodbath” comment pertained to widespread political violence.
Eight–maybe even four–years ago, that number would have been a statistical tie. In the past, Trump generated so much hate that half the voting population didn’t care about the truth. They just wanted to believe the worst about Bad Orange Man. The fact that the number against him with the “bloodbath” comment is only 40 percent tells me the anger is not what it was. It also tells me the media cannot manipulate people into the same kind of anger they could in 2016 and 2020.
Good heavens, only 46 percent of black voters say they believe Trump was threatening violence, while 37 percent agree with the economic context. In the past, that number would’ve been 70/30 against Trump.
This is a very different year from 2016 and 2020.
Borrowed Time is winning five-star raves from everyday readers. You can read an excerpt here and an in-depth review here. Also available on Kindle and Audiobook.
THE ELITE RULING CLASS OF THE GLOBALIST DEMOCRAT PARTY OF BRIBES SUCKERS
Noam Chomsky: Capitalism, Media Control, & the Illusion of Democracy
It certainly worked for Biden in 2020, and his Attorney General, Merrick Garland, arguably the most corrupt and weaponized in history—that’s saying something with Obama’s “wingman,” Eric Holder in the running—is working hard to keep that organization up and running:
The DOJ sued DISH network for $3.3 billion but dismissed the suit after its chair donated to Biden
Two sayings are pertinent to this essay. The first is that correlation does not imply causation. Just because two events seem connected doesn’t mean they are. The second is that timing is everything. Think about both as you consider the Department of Justice’s decision to dismiss a massive corporate fraud lawsuit a short time after the corporation’s founder made a sizable donation to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.
DISH Network is an American satellite network. In 2015, the DOJ sued DISH under the False Claims Act. The suit was based on Whistleblower Vermont National Telephone Company, Inc.’s allegation that DISH and its affiliates were allegedly using fraud to get small business discounts for wireless spectrum licenses. As recently as November 2023, a federal judge kept the case alive in the face of DISH’s motion for a judgment on the pleadings (i.e., DISH contended that the DOJ’s complaint contained within it the seeds of its own destruction).
On December 15, 2023, less than one month after the federal court refused to dismiss the DOJ’s suit, one of DISH’s founders, Charlie Ergen, along with his wife, Candy, donated a total of $113,200 to keep Biden in the White House…and, inevitably, to keep his currently constituted Department of Justice in power.
Image: A downed DISH receiver by frankieleon. CC BY 2.0.
On January 10, 2024, only three-and-a-half weeks after Ergen sent his money to Biden, and while the fraud suit was still pending, DISH received $50 million in taxpayer funds when the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration announced an $80 million round of five grants. The other four grantees divided the remaining $30 million in grant money.
A mere two days after the $50 million grant, the attorney for Vermont Telephone, which had triggered the DOJ’s initial action against DISH, complained that the DOJ was putting pressure on Vermont Telephone to enter into “an unethical settlement” or it would dismiss the suit:
The move to dismiss the case scrapped plans to depose the Ergens about their knowledge of the allegedly fraudulent scheme, prompting Vermont Telephone’s attorneys to accuse the Justice Department of political interference.
“[I]t appears that the effect — if not the purpose — of the DOJ’s rush to seek dismissal of this case is to protect Mr. Ergen from being questioned under oath,” Ross wrote in a Feb. 8 letter to the lead DOJ attorneys handling the case, according to a copy reviewed by The Post.
“We do not believe it is a coincidence that Mr. Ergen, his wife (who also is scheduled to be deposed next week), and DISH’s Political Action Committee collectively contributed in excess of $5 million to Democratic candidates and causes between 2008 and 2022,” he added.
“With the upcoming election, this case looks like just the latest example of the DOJ’s two-tiered justice system under which the well-heeled, politically connected are treated one way, while everyone else is treated differently.”
The last item in this chronology is that on March 8, the DOJ moved to dismiss the case. You can read more details about the whole case, from its inception to the motion to dismiss, in this New York Post article. Indeed, the article is worth reading as an expose about how corporate money and politics work in D.C., with most money flowing to Democrats but surprisingly large sums keeping individual Republicans afloat.
As I noted at the start of this post, just because there seems to be a connection between things, that doesn’t mean there is a connection. The chronology suggests that, once Ergen started throwing large sums of money at a sitting president whose re-election campaign is in trouble, that same president told his Department of Justice to lay off his good friend. It could just be, though, that the case has been kicking about for years so that the DOJ decided it was time to unload it because it was hogging resources without any discernable benefit to the American people.
But as always, timing is everything, and the appearance of impropriety can be just as powerful as actual impropriety. We’ve long known that Garland’s DOJ is driven by politics, not principle. Now, we have the strong suggestion that it can be bought, too.
Attorney General Garland promises election lawfare
Who can forget October of 2020, when Joe Biden committed a gaffe? He certainly does that more or less constantly, but this one was a classic, because a gaffe is properly defined as what happens when a politician accidently tells the truth:
‘We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics,’ Biden said in the video.
It certainly worked for Biden in 2020, and his Attorney General, Merrick Garland, arguably the most corrupt and weaponized in history—that’s saying something with Obama’s “wingman,” Eric Holder in the running—is working hard to keep that organization up and running:
Speaking [in March of 2024] to a predominantly African-American crowd at a Black Selma church service, [AG Merrick Garland] said:
The right to vote is still under attack, and that is why the Justice Department is fighting back. We are challenging efforts by states and jurisdictions who implement discriminatory, burdensome, and unnecessary restrictions on access to the ballot, including those related to mail-in voting, the use of drop boxes and voter ID requirements.
No, AG Garland, the right to vote is NOT under attack. Georgia, which passed its reform laws after the 2020 election and invited a boycott of woke companies, including Major League Baseball (which canceled the All-Star game in Atlanta), reported that more voters and more minority voters participated in the 2022 elections than at any time in Georgia history. Even Stacey Abrams, the losing candidate for governor in 2018, who never conceded her defeat and became a media darling, accepted that she lost her rematch against Brian Kemp.
How is it possible the chief law enforcement officer in America doesn’t know drop boxes, refusing to enforce ID laws and mail-in ballots are among the best methods of cheating? Or perhaps he does…
Is it possible AG Garland is unaware of the Supreme Court’s 2008 Crawford .v Marion County Election Board decision? NBC was aware, and disappointed:
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws. [skip]
The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy.
Is it possible AG Garland, and the entire DOJ is unable to use Internet search engines, like the engine that provided the URLs I’ve embedded? Or is it more likely they’re simply ignoring the Supreme Court, which they’ve proved more than willing to do? Not every state has voter ID laws. Is Garland worried there aren’t enough states without them to provide the necessary margin of voter fraud for 2024?
Beyond experience and common, adult, sense, there is substantial evidence drop boxes and mail-on balloting are primary sources of virtually untraceable vote fraud. How can it be Garland and the DOJ Voting Rights Section don’t know that? And if that’s so, if they really are that incompetent, that unaware of human and political nature, how is it there are apparently no other attorneys in the entire DOJ who have not set them straight?
Obviously, Garland and his cronies know exactly what they’re doing. They’re enabling vote fraud, surely to ensure illegal immigrants can vote in the millions to put over the electoral finish line a man most legal Americans know is demented. In the process, they’re insulting America’s poor and black citizens, branding them too stupid to obtain identification necessary for daily life. Reasonable people might call that racist.
Reasonable people might also think our republic is better off if people who can’t get identification, and can’t be bothered to get to the polls on election day, don’t vote. Obviously, people who have legitimate reasons for being unable to be present on election day, like our military serving overseas and the handicapped, must be allowed absentee ballots, but with effective safeguards and verification.
Using taxpayer resources and the power of the federal government to violate Supreme Court decisions and enable vote fraud on a never before imagined scale is among the most un-American, anti-republican acts of a thoroughly corrupt administration. Reasonable people might call that tyrannical. And they’d be right, and consistent. They’re absolutely perpetuating “the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.”
That’s great for “our democracy—a permanent, one-party, Democrat/socialist/communist state, but terrible for our constitutional, representative republic. I wonder if Garland has heard about that?
Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, life-long athlete, firearm instructor, retired police officer and high school and college English teacher. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.
Graphic: X screenshot
THE ELITE RULING CLASS OF THE GLOBALIST DEMOCRAT PARTY OF BRIBES SUCKERS
Noam Chomsky: Capitalism, Media Control, & the Illusion of Democracy
Ketanji Brown Jackson is a fascist who should be removed from the Court
Ketanji Brown Jackson, is concerned the First Amendment is “hamstringing the government.”
That’s a 5-alarm fire of a pull-quote from a sitting Supreme Court justice, and she should absolutely be impeached and removed from the Court over it. I’m as serious as a heart attack here. Nearly every sentence of this single thought of hers adds up to textbook fascism, (a hybrid economic system in which the private economy exists but under strict state regulations, and must give way to the national interest, which is whatever the government says it is.) So, let’s go. First the full quote, directly from the SCOTUS transcript, followed by seven handpicked doozies worth analyzing:
JUSTICE JACKSON: So my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods. I mean, what would -- what would you have the government do? I’ve heard you say a couple times that the government can post its own speech, but in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not safe, don’t do it, is not going to get it done. And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. So can you help me? Because I’m really -- I’m really worried about that because you’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government’s perspective and you’re saying that the government can’t interact with the source of those problems.
“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government….”
Really? Your biggest concern is how the First Amendment hamstrings… the federal government? No, honey. No. Your biggest concern should be the federal government hamstringing the First Amendment. You have it exactly backwards. The “charter of negative liberties” is exactly that for a reason, intentionally crafted to restrict the government’s ability to deprive the people of their essential liberties. The entire point of the Bill of Rights is to “hamstring” the federal government; how does she not understand this down to her bones?
Also, what do we not understand about censoring ideas here? Suppressing tweets is the new book burning, and how’d that work out?
2. “What would you have the government do?”
Are you kidding? Government has the biggest microphone imaginable to make her case; granted, it’s hard to make a case against the very legal foundation of the United States, but persuasion is a big part of the job one asks for when one asks to do the people’s work. Because what comes after persuasion? That’s right: force. So you’d better be good at the former. that’s the job she asked for when she asked to do the people’s work. Now if it’s compelling, the people will heed it; if it’s not, then it’s a weak argument. Don’t ask for such an awesome responsibility if you’re not up to the task, and definitely don’t ask for it if your first impulse is to suffocate it until it stops bothering you.
3. “In my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not safe, don’t do it, is not going to get it done.”
That’s what parents are for. The end.
4. “Some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country….”
Yes, from each other. From murder and mayhem. Not from ourselves. I’m a born-free American. I don’t need you to babysit me. I’m perfectly capable of sorting through information to make a reasoned decision. The solution to “dangerous” speech is more speech, not less, as Justice Brandeis so famously intoned when he said, “To expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied [to speech one does not like] is more speech, not enforced silence.”
Image created by author using public domain photo.
5. “You seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information.”
Damned right. Government is force. The simplest ask from the federal government to (any company, but in this case) a social media company to police opinions it does not like carries with it an implicit — if not explicit — “or else.” How does this have to be explained? To anyone?
6. “I’m really worried… you’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government’s perspective…”
Good. When the government feels threatened, when it fears the people, there is Liberty. And once again, we have to notice her baseline impulse is to protect government—not you, not me, and not the people. It’s not like the Feds are lacking any kind of influence whatsoever or at risk of being tyrannized by... tweets. Opinions. Good grief.
7. “You’re saying that the government can’t interact with the source of those problems.”
Girlfriend’s got the “source” wrong. It’s not social media; it’s us. In her mind, whether she knows it or not, or would admit it or not, we, the people, are “the source of those problems.” Us and all our messy Liberty. Talking to each other. Debating. Arguing. Over this, over that. Ew. No wonder she’s upset.
Sarcasm aside, that really is her problem here. We the people. Until social media came along, the institutional left had near monolithic operational control of every information dispensing organ in the country: television, print, movies, education, and the federal bureaucracy. If they wanted to propagandize us, they could quite literally go full court press, with every quarter singing from the same songbook. But with Twitter and Facebook? Our opinions could be widely shared in a nationwide town square, and maybe even go viral—the left couldn’t have that!
So what did they do? Well, as was revealed in The Twitter Files, the Feds had a 21st Century “bat phone” they could pick up anytime they saw a post they didn’t like to “encourage” and “pressure” those agreeable companies into doing the government’s bidding. Tony Soprano would’ve loved that bat phone.
Because that’s textbook mafia fascism. For reals. The real thing. F-A-S-C-I-S-M. How KBJ does not understand this, all of this — down to her bones — is breathtaking.
Americans, freedom-loving Americans, who have been properly raised to understand our Constitution and cherish our inherent liberties would never, ever, in a million years, lament that the First Amendment had “hamstrung” government.
I would suggest that Ms. Jackson be brought in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee and asked to clarify her views on the First Amendment, but we don’t want to set an abusable precedent. We don’t want justices afraid to ask questions during argument, and we don’t want them hauled before the very committee which was supposed to have vetted them thoroughly simply for asking one — albeit alarming — question.
However (and this is a big however), when that question exposes a foundational, fundamental, bedrock ignorance, dare we say inversion, of our first, most cherished principle, our soul’s right to breathe, that’s absolutely impeachable.
They’ll never do it of course. The entire Republican conference put together lacks the testicular fortitude of one Nancy Pelosi all by her diminutive self. So I guess all we can do is wag a finger and say shame on the Senate for not doing the due diligence we just did here. They could have mined her thoughts on every amendment. They didn’t. It’s too late for that, but it needs to be noted, for the record, that they gave us a Supreme Court justice whose first impulse is to worry about the federal government, and since they won’t remove her, every senator who voted for her must be removed, held accountable to us, those unruly, opinionated people.
Image: Public domain.
Leftists are terrified of free speech because it truly is the voice of the people
The American Revolution channeled power away from the government and empowered individuals. The French Revolution—the first socialist revolution—violently switched totalitarian power from a king to a cabal of insiders. That happened in all subsequent socialist revolutions, too (e.g., Russia, China, and Cuba), although the mantra was invariably about “power to the people.” Last week, a Canadian outlet dropped the mask: It’s never been about power to the people; it’s always been about power to the elites, and free speech needs to be abolished to keep that power structure intact.
The editorial appears in Canada’s The Globe and Mail, which is essentially Canada’s New York Times—read all across the country, with a powerful political effect. The author, Lawrence Martin, not unsurprisingly, has a Harvard degree in his background. His editorial is boldly titled, “Excessive free speech is a breeding ground for more Trumps.”
The essay’s springboard is Murthy v. Missouri, a case asking whether the government can coerce private communicative enterprises (e.g., social media) to censor citizens, all in the name of silencing opposition to government policies. It was during oral argument in this case that affirmative-action hire Ketanji Brown Jackson complained that the plaintiff’s First Amendment arguments were “hamstringing the government in significant ways.”
Martin’s essay usefully explains why he, Brown Jackson, and others like him (the self-styled elite) want to silence the common people. According to Martin, “free speech” was once a sensible system in which governments populated with people like Martin and Brown Jackson placed civilized limits on discourse. The internet, however, took the government out of the equation:
When other communications revolutions like the printing press, radio, and television came along, they were still largely controlled by the elites. But when the internet came along, regulatory bodies like Canada’s CRTC backed off. It was open season for anything that anyone wanted to put out. No license needed. No identity verification.
What a far cry from the days when the masses had no outlets save things like “man-on-the-street” interviews or letters to the editor or protest placards. We moved from one extreme to the other.
The masses were finally weaponized – not with arms, but with a communications instrument that empowered them against establishment forces like they had never been empowered before. The change represented one of history’s significant power shifts.
The horror of this revolution was the internet changed vox populi (that is, the “voice of the people”) into the actual voice of the people. Before the internet, democracy, as leftists use the term, was a pleasant fiction keeping power in the hands of the academically credentialed aristocrats and their hangers-on. The internet turned the fiction of “democracy” into actual democracy, the Martins of the world hate it:
Unchecked, the internet dumped megatons of raw sewage on the public square. With filters that had been around for ages now removed came mountains of misinformation and disinformation. And propaganda, polarization, child pornography. And threats against leaders and bigotry and conspiracy claptrap.
In this world, misinformation and propaganda are unrelated to the left’s repeatedly exposed lies about COVID, ivermectin, the Russia hoax, January 6, and the election. Polarization doesn’t refer to Biden using the State of the Union address to launch into a screaming attack at the political opponent he’s subjecting to relentless civil and criminal lawfare. And child pornography doesn’t count if it means forcing abnormal sexual practices onto kindergarteners and inviting to schools fetishistic men in women’s clothes who routinely get arrested later for child pornography.
If you look at what the people (the ones who now have a voice) see, it’s obvious that Martin and his elite comrades are naked Emperors preening in front of mirrors, convinced that they look dazzling. Thanks to the warped mirror into which he views the world, Martin can reveal the true horror of free speech, which is that it gives the little people a real say in politics (i.e., it creates democracy):
Would the rise of the hard right and Mr. Trump have been possible if the internet had been given guardrails? Not a chance. The internet gave him – before his account was suspended in 2021 – 88 million Twitter followers. With that came the freedom to circumvent traditional media and create an alternate universe, a smearsphere wherein he could lie like he breathes and get away with it.
The internet undermined the established newspaper business model, greatly reducing the number of papers and coverage and creating a void for Mr. Trump and the like-minded to fill. His cries of fake news had the impact – it’s charted well in former Washington Post editor Martin Barron’s book, Collision of Power – of compartmentalizing the media landscape into left-right silos, which helped bring on the extremes of polarization.
Fortunately, Martin has a prescription for the horror of the people’s choice in a democratic republic: Repression. And no, I’m not exaggerating. “The way to reverse the trend is with rigid regulation,” he explains. Shorn of that bureaucratic language, he’s demanding government censorship.
Starting with COVID, nations that once had a tradition of free speech (e.g., Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, etc.) have been criminalizing and regulating speech. That’s because a tradition is not a right.
America, by contrast, has a contract between the government and the people (i.e., the Constitution) acknowledging that free speech is a citizen’s right, not a government’s prerogative. But people break contracts all the time, and that is what the Biden government is doing now. Once it fully succeeds, there’s no going back, so vote wisely in November. (And no, a protest vote against both Biden and Trump is not wise.)
Biden’s cyber-mess flying under the radar
Joe Biden’s presidency has hit new lows in 2024. Despite what many media outlets and talking heads on the left wanted to portray as an “energetic” and “fiery” State of the Union address last week, most Americans were not impressed by the speech, as the customary post-SOTU polling spike that most presidents enjoy hasn’t been there for Joe Biden.
Half of Democrat Voters Say the News Is Being ‘Dictated’ by the Biden Campaign
Republican voters see it. Independent voters see it. And now, even half of Democrat voters agree that the news media are simply regurgitating Pres. Joe Biden’s talking points, a new survey reveals.
In a national poll of U.S. likely voters, conducted March 18-20, Rasmussen asked the following question:
“How likely is it that the major news media’s political coverage is dictated by talking points from the Biden campaign?”
Nearly two-thirds (63%) of all voters say it’s at least “somewhat likely” that Biden is dictating the contents of political news being fed to Americans, including 42% who consider it to be “very” likely.
Sixty-one (61%) of Republican voters say it’s “very” likely that Biden’s dictating the news – and more than three in four (78%) call it at least “somewhat” likely.
Independent voters also see Biden pulling the media’s puppet strings, with 61% calling it likely and 42% saying it’s “very” likely.
But, even the supporters of Biden’s talking points, Democrat voters, see that news coverage is being skewed in their favor, with half (50%) agreeing that media are mouthpieces for Biden. What’s more, a quarter of Democrat voters actually say that it’s “very likely” Biden is dictating the news they receive.
Still, Democrat voters don’t seem overly concerned that media are pushing political propaganda.
While 60% of all voters agree (30% “strongly”) that media “truly are the enemy of the people,” 54% of Democrat voters disagree (36% “strongly”).
WE'RE GONNA PUT YOU OUT FUKER JOE! OUT TO GITMO!
RFK Jr.: Biden Suspended Free Speech
RFK Jr.: Why Our Economy Is Headed For Collapse
Report: Biden Administration Relying on Democrat ‘Influencers’ Who Created ‘Bloodbath’ Hoax
Democrat social media “influencers” affiliated with the White House created the “bloodbath” hoax — the misleading claim that former President Donald Trump called for a “bloodbath” of political violence if he is not elected, according to a report.
“Acyn,” an anonymous senior digital editor for the activist liberal news site MeidasTouch.com, first made a video clip of Trump’s speech from Ohio, in which the former president warned of an economic bloodbath for the United States auto industry due to Chinese manufacturing.
WATCH — Fake News Freakout! Leftist Media Hoax over Trump’s “Bloodbath” Comment… What Did He Actually Say?:
However, instead of showing Trump’s full remarks, they were presented out of context to suggest that Trump was referring to political violence if he is not elected.
According to Semafor, Democrats “leaped to demand news outlets cover it as a major story that underscored Trump’s violent intentions.”
Despite backlash for the hoax being misleading, the official rapid-response X account for the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris 2024 campaign pushed the hoax in a number of posts and then turned the moment into a campaign ad.
According to the report, the Biden White House has embraced Acyn and other social media influencers pushing out misleading content about Trump, even inviting Acyn and his boss, Ron Filipkowski, and other social media influencers such as Aaron Rupar, to “talk strategy” before the State of the Union.
They were reportedly given a preview of the speech, and spoke with White House strategist Anita Dunn and Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff about the president’s agenda.
Anita Dunn (L) at the U.S. Capitol on July 22, 2021, in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Dunn praised Filipkowski, Rupar, and other influencers to Semafor:
We need to be creative and move fast to contrast the President’s optimistic agenda for the future with the extreme agenda of Republican officials who want to take us back in time… . Aaron, Ron, and many others are on the front lines of making sure the American people know the truth of what is at stake.
Filipkowski told the outlet that one of his goals was to change the “storyline” of Biden’s “presidential feebleness,” by highlighting Trump gaffes.
“The Meidas guys, as a team, said: We are going to do this to Trump,” Filipkowski told Semafor:
We are going to hit every gaffe, every mispronunciation, every slurred word, every mispronounced name, every time he mixes up a name. We’re going to clip that and we’re going to put it out and we’re going to put it in montages. No one else was doing that. Before last August, you can’t find a mainstream media story about Trump mispronouncing and slurring words. They weren’t out there.
The Intercept’s Ryan Grim reportedly criticized Rupar and other similar social media influencers as “Trump’s most valuable weapons,” for highlighting quotes that Trump could spin away — such as the misleading “bloodbath” hoax.
Grim reportedly called Rupar “a threat to the free press, undermining honest reporters by presenting himself as a journalist but behaving as a partisan hack.”
Follow Breitbart News’s Kristina Wong on ”X”, Truth Social, or on Facebook.
Democrats Cannot Win a Fraud-Free Election
Joe Biden, or whoever the Democrat nominee may be, cannot win the 2024 election fairly. While all mainstream networks focus on Trump’s alleged negatives, these pale in comparison to those of Biden and his party. The neocon faction of the Republican Party has claimed this election will be a referendum on Trump. However, the real referendum will be on Joe Biden and the Democrat party as a whole.
There have been a noteworthy number of “referendum” elections throughout history, where a nominee’s fate was determined by their, or their party’s, poor handling of a significant crisis. In fact, there has been one almost every decade since the 1960s.
The most important issue in the 1968 election was the highly unpopular Vietnam War, which coincided with a period of immense civil unrest following the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy. As a result, President Lyndon B. Johnson, suspecting a voter backlash, became the first president not to seek reelection since 1928. Instead, his Vice President Hubert Humphrey was chosen as the Democrat nominee. But he could not overcome the public’s dissatisfaction and was defeated largely due to Johnson’s handling of those issues.
Richard Nixon was the beneficiary of the Johnson referendum. But just a few years later, it was he who prompted another. Despite the country voting in a landslide for him in 1972, Nixon resigned following the Watergate scandal only two years later. Voters expressed their disgust by voting out Nixon’s VP and Republican nominee Gerald Ford in the 1976 election, with historians citing Ford’s pardon of Nixon as a key reason for his election loss.
President Carter kept with recent tradition by allowing crises to determine his electoral fate. Carter’s presidency was marred by two historically awful issues: Inflation and the Iranian hostage crisis that began exactly one year before the election. As a result, voters arrived at the ballot box with empty wallets and immense anger over Americans being trapped abroad, so the electoral map reverted almost identically to Nixon’s 1972 landslide by 1980.
President George H.W. Bush was able to ride the coattails of the popular Reagan years to a comfortable Electoral College victory in 1988. But he would go on to preside over a recession and a major unemployment problem. These issues even prompted the emergence of third-party candidate businessman named Ross Perot to run for the presidency, which undoubtedly aided in Bush’s defeat, in addition to the already dissatisfied sentiment regarding the economy amongst voters.
By 2008, it was another Bush whose reign led to a blowout election. George W. Bush’s high approval following the September 11th attacks had vanished by 2008, as he, like his father, presided over a recession. This culminated in a stock market crash on September 29th, 2008, just weeks before the election. His decision-making regarding the Middle East had also grown increasingly unpopular. Unsurprisingly, his party’s nominee, John McCain, was defeated in an Electoral College landslide.
Each of these presidents and nominees bore the stain of one or two very important crises in the lead-up to the election. These elections resulting in relatively noncompetitive defeats proves one major crisis is all it takes to lose. Joe Biden and the Democrat party have five, all of which the public is squarely placing blame on his administration and party.
The seemingly biggest issue of concern right now is the border crisis. Immediately upon taking office, Biden halted border wall construction. He then ended Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), also known as “Remain in Mexico,” which required asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while their immigration cases were being processed. He has also severely handicapped Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ability to curtail illegal migration. This has resulted in a massive influx of illegal aliens who have wreaked havoc on American society by flooding its cities and committing serious crimes, including murders.
If immigration is the number one issue, the economy is 1B. Jimmy Carter has always been known as the inflation president, but Biden has managed it worse. Carter took office with inflation at 5.2% and saw it eventually rise to a high of 14.8%, a 184% increase. Biden took office with inflation at just 1.4%, and saw it increase to 9.1%, which is a 550% increase. Carter inherited an inflation problem and made it worse. Biden created one. Further, since Biden took office the average monthly mortgage payment has nearly doubled from $1,746 to $3,322, while the median household income has fallen during that time, crushing the American dream of home ownership for countless Americans.
Biden has further emptied Americans pockets by waging war on the American energy sector. His obsession (or his handler’s obsession) with electric energy replacing “climate change causing” sources of energy has been devastating. Biden restricted oil and gas leasing which harmed domestic energy production, and signed executive orders aimed at ensuring half of all new vehicles sold by 2030 are electric. This attack has resulted in all 50 states setting record highs in gas prices during his tenure, as the average cost of gas has been over three dollars per gallon nationally for over one thousand days now.
Foreign affairs are another factor causing Americans unease. With the election appearing to be a rematch between President Trump and Joe Biden, a rare comparing of apples to (rotten) apples is set to commence. Even partisans acknowledge the increasingly hostile state of global affairs under Biden compared to Trump. Cries that Trump would trigger a nuclear war with North Korea were unwarranted as he instead brokered world peace before handing the keys to Biden. While this was expected to continue, calamity continues to unfold instead. Biden has added salt to this wound by throwing endless amounts of American money at foreign problems while allowing anyone, including those from countries where terror is ensuing, to illegally to come across the border unvetted. This exponentially increases the potential for similar terror as we are seeing abroad to reach the United States.
The final crisis is the weaponization of government. Under Biden, Americans are seeing unprecedented weaponization. Jack Smith was appointed special counsel in the classified documents and January 6th indictments of President Trump, both widely viewed to be politically motivated. Smith was directly appointed by Biden’s Attorney General, Merrick Garland. Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis met directly with the Biden administration shortly before prosecuting Trump for election interference. In the New York-based hush money case, Matthew Colangelo, who previously targeted Trump during his time in the New York AG’s office, recently left the Biden/Garland DoJ and joined Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s team that is targeting Trump. Beyond targeting the preferred candidate of millions of Americans, Biden’s FBI has also targeted traditional Catholics, labeling them as potential violent extremists, in addition to Biden’s White House encouraging major social media platforms to violate the First Amendment by removing posts they disagreed with.
When push comes to shove, voters vote for what is best for their health, safety, and finances over rhetoric or personality. This means only a high-level voter fraud operation will allow this agenda to continue.
As flavor-of-the-month narratives about what will sway voters flood mainstream networks between now and November 5th, recognize that any time a president or party has been widely viewed as responsible for significant crises, they are voted out of power. There are numerous instances of this occurring without any exceptions. Americans overwhelmingly view Biden as the culprit in all these major crises. He cannot legitimately win, nor can anyone his party may replace him with.
Matt Kane graduated from Stony Brook University with a Bachelor’s degree in political science. His work has been posted by President Trump, and published by RealClearPolitics and AMAC. Follow on Truth Social: @MattKane X: @MattKaneUSA
Image: Public Domain
Media Research Center: Google Interfered in 41 U.S. Elections over 16 Years
A new study by the Media Research Center alleges that Google has repeatedly interfered in U.S. elections, favoring leftist candidates and suppressing conservative voices.
Google, the ultra-woke tech giant that dominates online search and advertising, has been accused of a staggering pattern of election interference spanning over 16 years and 41 separate instances, according to a bombshell report from the Media Research Center (MRC). The study, conducted by MRC’s Free Speech America division, levels severe allegations against the Silicon Valley giant, claiming it has systematically utilized its immense technological prowess to sway electoral outcomes in favor of left-leaning candidates.
“MRC researchers have found 41 times where Google interfered in elections over the last 16 years, and its impact has surged dramatically, making it evermore harmful to democracy. In every case, Google harmed the candidates – regardless of party – who threatened its left-wing candidate of choice,” asserted Dan Schneider, vice president of MRC Free Speech America, and Gabriela Pariseau, the division’s editor.
Breitbart’s Google search traffic on Joe Biden flatlined months before the 2020 election.
The study cites a litany of apparent infractions, ranging from algorithmic manipulation to outright censorship. Among the most egregious claims are allegations that Google favored Barack Obama over his Republican rivals John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012, refused to rectify a derogatory “Google bomb” smearing Rick Santorum during the 2012 GOP primaries, and excluded potentially damaging autofill results for Hillary Clinton in 2016 while not extending the same courtesy to Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders.
Moreover, the researchers assert that Google disabled Tulsi Gabbard’s ad account during the 2020 Democratic debates, suppressed negative coverage of Joe Biden, concealed most Republican campaign websites in 2022’s competitive Senate races, and is actively aiding Biden’s 2024 campaign by “burying in its search results the campaign websites of every one of his significant opponents.”
NEW YORK, NY – NOVEMBER 07: Rep. Tulsi Gabbard talks with SiriusXM’s “Breitbart News Daily” at SiriusXM Studios on November 7, 2019 in New York City. (Photo by Cindy Ord/Getty Images for SiriusXM)
The authors of the study allege that this pattern of misconduct extends far beyond mere isolated incidents. “Utilizing the many tools in its arsenal, Google aided those who most closely aligned with its leftist values from election cycle to election cycle since as far back as the 2008 presidential election. Meanwhile, it targeted for censorship those candidates who posed the most serious threat,” they wrote, accusing the company of making election interference “an organizational mission.”
Supporting these claims, the study cites research from Dr. Robert Epstein, who concluded that Google’s algorithm likely shifted at least 2.6 million votes toward Hillary Clinton in 2016, while its “results and get-out-the-vote reminders favored Democrats and shifted the 2020 election results by at least 6 million votes.”
Google has adamantly refuted the allegations, asserting it has implemented robust safeguards to ensure unbiased and accurate search results. “There is absolutely nothing new here – just a recycled list of baseless, inaccurate complaints that have been debunked by third parties and many that failed in the courts,” a Google spokesperson told Fox News Digital, adding, “We have a clear business incentive to keep everyone using our products, so we have no desire to make them biased or inaccurate.”
Read more at MRC Free Speech here.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship.
would joe biden have been elected if big tech had not censored/deleted info on the biden crime family???
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill: Big Tech Censorship Case Heads to U.S. Supreme Court
Ronald Reagan famously said, “the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” When it comes to freedom of speech, that could not be more true.
One hundred and three pages of fact findings in district court, supported by five hundred and ninety-one footnotes, demonstrate a sprawling campaign of “unrelenting pressure from the most powerful office in the world” to “bend [social-media platforms] to the government’s will.” The Biden administration, however, claims that these platforms aggressively censored American voices because of Biden’s persuasive “eloquence,” rather than its threats and coercion.
While the White House insisted that social media platforms view themselves as “partners,” on the same “team,” and benefiting from the government’s “help,” those same officials were subjecting the platforms to relentless abuse, accusations, and blatant threats. Of course, this abusive relationship between Big Government and Big Tech didn’t begin this way. It was a slow burn starting as early 2017, when the FBI began coordinating secret meetings in Silicon Valley with content-moderation officers across seven platforms. Even then, the platforms were threatened with “legislation” if they did not censor more, with encrypted lists demanding mass-censorship flooding their inboxes.
This soon escalated to more aggressive practices. By 2018, CISA, or the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, was highlighting “disinformation” from state and local officials to be censored across platforms, and in 2020, the “Election Integrity Partnership” was launched — a colossal mass-surveillance and mass-censorship project that entangled government agencies, the Stanford Internet Observatory, and social media platforms into an Orwellian knot. In time, this would be rebranded as “The Virality Project,” with the capability to monitor tens of millions of social media “engagements” per week and spur extensive censorship.
By the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, this shadowy Ministry of Truth had completely embedded itself into the very fabric of our digital communications. As a result, it wasn’t difficult for President Biden to double down on such an insidious system, one conveniently engineered for “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.” Like water carving into rock, the unrelenting pressure from the “highest (and I mean highest) levels of the White House” proved too much for these tech companies to bear, with one hand offering them a carrot for compliance and the other threatening the complete annihilation of their business model. One by one, they folded to pressure from the Biden White House, responding with “total compliance,” even when it meant censoring truthful information that did not violate existing platform policies.
U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty of Louisiana granted an historic injunction in response to our 2022 lawsuit Louisiana and Missouri v. Biden on July 4, 2023. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed it — twice. Both courts have confirmed that the government’s coordinated campaign to censor domestic speech through private institutions violates the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans. Yet the Biden administration continues to unapologetically coerce platforms into censorship to this day, resulting in an oppressive editorial power that affects every American.
Biden’s attorneys have also made it clear that this administration has no intention of ceasing its unconstitutional conduct. Instead, they’ve expressed the firm intention to continue. That is why this case at the U.S. Supreme Court is so important to our nation. These censorship efforts were never vague or abstract but extremely specific, right down to individual speakers and posts flagged for “misinformation” or “disinformation” because they dared to criticize the government’s narrative. But the government does not have the power to secretly distort the marketplace of ideas or actively manipulate public discourse to suit its needs. Moreover, “a state may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish” (Norwood v. Harrison).
Our limited discovery has uncovered extensive suppression of speech that goes against the fundamental nature of American liberty. For our government, its institutions, or its officials to actively censor protected speech strikes at the core of who we are as citizens of a free nation with a government created by the people, for the people.
I invite you to listen to our oral argument on March 18, where evidence rather than Orwellian “eloquence” will be front and center.
Liz Murrill is the Attorney General of Louisiana. She previously served as the state’s Solicitor General and has been with this case from the beginning. The case is Murthy v. Missouri, No. 23-411 in the Supreme Court of the United States.
AMERICA SHOULD AS THE BANKSTERS' RENT BOY ERIC HOLDER WHAT HE, OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN DID FOR BLACK AMERICA. ABSOLUTELY NADA!
Holder: Media Will Change Coverage and That’ll Help Biden Win
On Friday’s broadcast of HBO’s “Real Time,” former Attorney General Eric Holder commented on President Joe Biden’s poll numbers by stating that “as the media turns its attention to making this a binary choice between a person who’s got some age and cognitive issues — that would be Trump — against somebody who has actually accomplished a lot, I think we’ll do just fine.”
Host Bill Maher asked, “What do you make of the fact that the Democrats, by every poll I read, are, I would just say, losing their base? If you look at non-white working-class voters, there has been a 61-point shift, that’s an incredible amount, from 2012, that’s in twelve years. Obama, in 2012…I think won it by 67 points, that demographic. Biden won it by 48. Now he’s only up by six. What’s going on there?”
Holder answered, “I think, first off, you’re measuring March against November. We’re looking at where people are right now, I think you’ll probably see a movement with regard to working-class people of all races towards Biden by the time you get to November. You’re also comparing an extremely — an unbelievably popular African American running for the first time and who really galvanized people in all strata of life. And so, I think, in some ways, that’s not a fair comparison. But I think we should not be too alarmed by these March polls, you’ve got to take them into consideration. But March is a fundamentally different month than October and November, and we’ll see where these things turn out when we get to that part of the calendar year.”
Holder continued, “There’s work to be done, but I’m actually optimistic that, if we stay committed, focused, and as the media turns its attention to making this a binary choice between a person who’s got some age and cognitive issues — that would be Trump — against somebody who has actually accomplished a lot, I think we’ll do just fine. And what you said in the monologue was really good, though, Trump’s popularity rating is higher now than it ever was during his presidency. It’s like, hey, America, remember? … People, they’re saying, are you better off now than you were four years ago? You’re damn right we are. So, let’s not lose sight of the chaos, the corruption, and all the negative things that Donald Trump meant and put a good man back in the White House.”
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett
On Friday’s broadcast of HBO’s “Real Time,” former Attorney General Eric Holder commented on President Joe Biden’s poll numbers by stating that “as the media turns its attention to making this a binary choice between a person who’s got some age and cognitive issues — that would be Trump — against somebody who has actually accomplished a lot, I think we’ll do just fine.”
Host Bill Maher asked, “What do you make of the fact that the Democrats, by every poll I read, are, I would just say, losing their base? If you look at non-white working-class voters, there has been a 61-point shift, that’s an incredible amount, from 2012, that’s in twelve years. Obama, in 2012…I think won it by 67 points, that demographic. Biden won it by 48. Now he’s only up by six. What’s going on there?”
Holder answered, “I think, first off, you’re measuring March against November. We’re looking at where people are right now, I think you’ll probably see a movement with regard to working-class people of all races towards Biden by the time you get to November. You’re also comparing an extremely — an unbelievably popular African American running for the first time and who really galvanized people in all strata of life. And so, I think, in some ways, that’s not a fair comparison. But I think we should not be too alarmed by these March polls, you’ve got to take them into consideration. But March is a fundamentally different month than October and November, and we’ll see where these things turn out when we get to that part of the calendar year.”
Holder continued, “There’s work to be done, but I’m actually optimistic that, if we stay committed, focused, and as the media turns its attention to making this a binary choice between a person who’s got some age and cognitive issues — that would be Trump — against somebody who has actually accomplished a lot, I think we’ll do just fine. And what you said in the monologue was really good, though, Trump’s popularity rating is higher now than it ever was during his presidency. It’s like, hey, America, remember? … People, they’re saying, are you better off now than you were four years ago? You’re damn right we are. So, let’s not lose sight of the chaos, the corruption, and all the negative things that Donald Trump meant and put a good man back in the White House.”
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett
Sen. J.D. Vance Files Brief in Ohio Lawsuit Against Google
Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) filed a brief in favor of Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost’s case against Google, arguing the big tech platform should be regulated like a common carrier, Breitbart News has learned exclusively.
Vance’s brief in the case encourages the court of common pleas to give the case a full hearing and explains the legal rationale for Ohio’s case.
The Ohio populist’s brief is in support of Yost’s motion for summary judgment and to oppose Google’s motion to dismiss the case.
In his brief, Vance calls out Google’s “hypocrisy,” as the big tech platform claims in varying legal cases that it is sometimes a “neutral platform” and other cases it is not a utility because Google search result webpages are “Google’s own creation or selection.” He wrote:
Whether this is true or not—and it is not—Google is playing fast and loose with the facts. Google has claimed the exact opposite about its search service in other cases and before other courts. When seeking to limit its liability for user content under Section 230 of the Communications Act, it has asserted that its search services are “neutral tools,” Google Rep. Mem., 2017 WL 3188006, Gonzalez v. Google, 282 F.Supp.3d 1150 (N.D. Cal. 2017), that are solely “information provided by another.” Google Br., 2018 WL 3496264, at *3, Marshall’s Locksmith Service, Inc.v. Google, 925 F.3d 1263 (D.C.Cir. 2019).
Indeed, this hypocrisy has led at least one federal judge to conclude it is “a fair point” that Google is judicially estopped from claiming that “the blind operation of ‘neutral tools’” [in its algorithms and other sorting techniques] is actually “editorial discretion.” NetChoice v. Paxton, 49 F.4th 439, 467–68 (5th Cir. 2022), cert. granted in part, 144 S. Ct. 477 (2023). In short, Google cannot claim that there are no factual questions about whether its services are susceptible to common carrier regulation suitable for resolution at this stage of litigation—because at the very least, this Court must determine which version of the facts about search engines Google actually asserts. [Emphasis added]
Amicus Brief by Breitbart News on Scribd
Vance argues that Google operates in many ways like a common carrier, saying “its functions are essentially the same as any communications network: it connects people by transmitting their words and exchanging their messages. It functions just like an old telephone switchboard, but rather than connect people with cables and electromagnetic circuits, Google uses indices created through data analysis. As such, common carrier regulation is appropriate under Ohio law.”
This follows a May 2022 ruling that Yost’s lawsuit against Google, which labels the tech giant a common carrier subject to special regulations and litigation, can proceed.
Vance and the Claremont Institute filed in September 2021 an amicus brief in support of this case against Google.
Common carriers are strictly regulated about who they can deny service to. Common carriers include utilities and telecommunications companies.
“Courts have held that infringing on a private actor’s speech by requiring that actor to host another person’s speech does not always violate the First Amendment,” wrote Ohio County Court Judge James P. Schuck wrote in his ruling. “There are several examples in which private companies involved in mass communications were prohibited from censorship.”
Professor Adam Candeub, who led the Trump administration’s efforts to curb tech censorship, told Breitbart News at the time that this was a welcome ruling.
“The court recognized that the First Amendment does not prevent reasonable anti-discrimination requirements on companies that hold themselves out as transmitters of speech,” Candeub explained.
The case is State of Ohio v. Google in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, No. 21 CV H 06 0274
Sean Moran is a policy reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.
Biden’s cyber-mess flying under the radar
Joe Biden’s presidency has hit new lows in 2024. Despite what many media outlets and talking heads on the left wanted to portray as an “energetic” and “fiery” State of the Union address last week, most Americans were not impressed by the speech, as the customary post-SOTU polling spike that most presidents enjoy hasn’t been there for Joe Biden.
In fact, multiple polls released in the days since the speech have gone in the opposite direction for Biden. According to the Yahoo News/YouGov poll, Biden’s approval rating went from 40% prior to the speech to 39% this week. This increasing dissatisfaction with the current president was echoed in polling conducted by FiveThirtyEight, where, prior to the SOTU, Biden held a 38% approval rating on March 6 vs. a 37% approval rating on March 12.
The speech itself was a clinic in Beltway gaslighting, with Biden making a number of questionable to outright dishonest claims related to job growth, inflation, and so many other issues of concern to Americans.
On job growth, Biden’s claim to have created “15 million new jobs” in three years fails to acknowledge the fact that about 12 million of those jobs can and should be classified as post-COVID “Return-to-Work” jobs that were actually created by his predecessor, President Donald Trump.
On the topic of inflation, Biden actually told the joint session of Congress that the United States had achieved the “lowest in the world.” But in reality, the United States is experiencing higher inflation than a number of industrialized nations and new reports show that the rate has actually ticked upward.
Despite all the misleading chest-pounding during the address, one major issue that President Biden mostly stayed away from was America’s crumbling cybersecurity infrastructure. This was most likely by design, as the current administration has failed to distinguish itself as a global leader in the cybersphere.
Twenty twenty-three was a tough enough year for the U.S. in dealing with cyber events, with ransomware attacks, intrusive browser hijackers, and countless other threats compromising devices deployed for use in both the private and public sectors. But the first few months of 2024 have seen a rash of attacks against critical sectors, including health care, telecom, and state and local governments.
These attacks come at a time where the cyber landscape has changed tremendously, with major changes at the top for tech giant Microsoft, as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission ushering in a new era of forced private sector compliance regarding cyber events.
One of the more critical attacks has been the cyber-attack against Change Healthcare. The health care technology giant manages the medical records for roughly one third of American patients and manages billions of health care transactions annually. As of mid-March, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has launched an investigation into the attack, due to the “unprecedented magnitude of the cyberattack.”
The Change Healthcare attack represents one of the largest data hauls ever accessed in the history of cyber-crime. The reason for this kind of attack boils down to one simple motive: money. On the “dark web,” where the personal data of victimized Americans is bought and sold every day, medical records sell can fetch as much as $60 per person, compared to $15 for a Social Security number or $3 for credit card information.
Additionally, warnings issued earlier this year from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the FBI, and the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC), highlighted new threats against municipal and county governments, emergency services, educational institutions, public health care facilities, and critical infrastructure related to the Phobos ransomware gang.
It has become apparent that the Biden administration is handling our digital borders as poorly as they have handled out physical southern border with Mexico, and the best advice we can take here is to become as vigilant as we possibly can when dealing with our own personal online security. Educating ourselves regarding new attack vectors that include phony security pop-up scams and backdoors, which negate normal authentication procedures to access a system, is critical.
Other than that, there really is little we can do to prevent the major data breaches that continue to afflict major data warehouses, but with commonsense precautions, we can make 2024 a safer year online as we hope for a much-needed leadership change in 2025.
Julio Rivera is a business and political strategist, cybersecurity researcher, and a political commentator and columnist. His writing, which is focused on cybersecurity and politics, is regularly published by many of the largest news organizations in the world.
Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.
Change in America
There are two types of change. There is systemic change: change that occurs because of the political pressures within the system. Then there is anti-systemic change: change that occurs in opposition to the system in power, in other words pushback. An example of this would be when King Geoge III wanted to tax retail exchanges by means of the Stamp Act. This was only one of the taxes he tried imperiously to impose upon us to pay for our protection during the French and Indian war. This was seen by many revolutionaries in America back then as what we would call in our modern times, protection money.
Systemic change almost always occurs in the same way. I remember a long time ago in middle school part of a film, Future Shock, was shown to my eighth-grade class. In the film, two men kissed in a marriage ceremony. The entire class laughed boisterously at the absurdity and the impossibility of this event ever occurring. Now, as we know, Mitt Romney, a Republican, and the Congress of the United States have codified marriage equity into law, forever changing the relationships between men and women. How this happened was through constant pressure, over time, from a power source that finally wore down the American people and forced us to accept this change. This change was almost certain to occur because power was behind it; hence, what the book Future Shock was all about.
But what was the power that caused that change and virtually every other change in America? Permanent institutions and the elites they create. Permanent power -- or so we are supposed to believe. Yet the Founders of this nation did not believe that the British Empire and King George III were so powerful they could not be defeated in a revolutionary war. The Founders believed the people should have some say in how their lives were governed: No taxation without representation.
Now virtually everything that can be done to strip away the political power of the American people is being done. This is what is beneath the intense political friction that permeates our society. The legacy press will acknowledge the deep divisions, but it will never address the real causes -- the elephant in the room. Instead, Fox News, NBC News, CBS News, ABC News, and PBS News will use their vast communication power to convince us that something else is occurring. Fake news.
And then there is Donald Trump. We are a nation of laws, the press and the Washington establishment say again and again. Yet Trump has stood against the permanent elites, the permanent establishment, the permanent institutions. This is why they hate him so. He has provided a voice to many who have believed for a very long time that the system is rigged. We don’t have voice. We don’t have say. It’s all an insider deal. The swamp.
Now Trump is expected to pay almost half a billion dollars in fines because he supposedly overvalued the worth of his properties. He has said this would never have happened to him if he hadn’t been running for President, and, of course, he is right. However, this is just another example of an institution, a permanent power structure and the elites within it, trying to undermine the will of the people, rig the election, obliterate anyone outside the system from representing the average Allan and average Anne, who feel they no longer have representation within the system.
Image: Public Domain
The FBI's Otherwise Illegal Activity
How deeply is law enforcement interfering in the daily lives of American citizens?
For example, it was recently reported that the FBI labeled Americans who “support the biological basis for sex and gender distinction as potential domestic terrorists.”
Then what? What does the FBI, and those who cooperate with the FBI, do to such Americans?
Does the FBI label FBI employees who support biology as potential terrorists? Or, is the FBI saying that no FBI employees support the biological basis for sex and gender distinction?
The FBI and local police keep their specific actions, methods, and technologies mostly secret; thus, one cannot say with certainty what occurs after the FBI labels a person as a potential domestic terrorist.
Americans might study the history of the FBI and local police cooperating with the FBI for hints about what might occur after being labeled as a potential domestic terrorist. One might closely study the “Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, 1975-76.” The secret actions of the FBI and police cooperating with the FBI were summarized as follows:
...intelligence activity in the past decades has, all too often, exceeded the restraints on the exercise of governmental power which are imposed by our country's Constitution, laws, and traditions […]
Intelligence activity […] is generally covert. It is concealed from its victims and is seldom described in statutes or explicit executive orders. The victim may never suspect that his misfortunes are the intended result of activities undertaken by his government, and accordingly may have no opportunity to challenge the actions taken against him. (Pages 2-3)
Government employees have harmed Americans – caused them “misfortunes” – in the past. American citizens did not even know such harm was intentionally done to them, nor did they know it was government employees who secretly harmed them. Would current government employees do such things?
Now, if one is familiar with the above Senate Committee from the 1970s, one might respond by saying something like, “yeah, but the FBI was going after gangsters, druggies, commies, and groups who were racist against Caucasians. They were going after some murderers. I’m not in any of those groups, I just believe a man is a man and want to watch basketball!”
It is not clear how to convince such people other than by trying to argue from common sense.
There is the phenomenon of government officials, particularly those in fear of losing their ability to control others, creating a government entity or technology initially described as being good – say, to protect the citizens from terrorists, communists, gangsters, etc.
The government entity employs millions of people, again attempting to convince the citizens that the secret policing entity or technology is a great thing.
After the technology or government entity is fully operational and widespread, and after millions of people are fully dependent on government welfare disguised as government employment in the secret policing entity, then those few people (who could be in another country) in charge of the government then are able to control the masses.
Again, it is common sense: some government officials try to convince citizens something is good (surveillance technologies, secret police entity, etc.) and then use it to control and harm the citizens.
While the specific actions and technologies of the FBI and other secretly operating entities are mostly not publicized, there is one U.S. government document which suggests possible actions of the FBI.
The U.S. government document is entitled “The Attorney General’s Guidelines on Federal Bureau of Investigation Undercover Operations.”
Those guidelines importantly mention that FBI operations might involve local police or “local law enforcement agency working under the direction and control of the FBI.”
Additionally, the guidelines mention that the FBI is apparently allowed to secretly own and operate businesses and corporations, make “untrue representations” of other peoples’ actions, and engage “in activity having a significant effect on or constituting a significant intrusion into the legitimate operation of a Federal, state, or local governmental entity.”
Does the FBI “engage in activity having a significant effect on” juries, U.S. Congress, the presidency, or the Supreme Court? Does the FBI engage “in activity having a significant effect on or constituting a significant intrusion into the legitimate” national and local elections?
The FBI guidelines apparently also suggest employees and cooperators might “supply falsely sworn testimony or false documentation in any legal or administrative proceeding” and the FBI and others might commit “otherwise illegal activity,” apparently including “violence or physical injury to individuals or a significant risk of financial loss.”
Those guidelines on FBI operations seem to imply that there are many people in cities throughout America employed as secret government operatives who present themselves as everyday citizens but might actually be participating in schemes or “mitigating opportunities.”
Finally, another potential method publicized by the FBI and others is establishing rapport, which means friendly relationship enabling communication, with people they target. FBI wrote that “Building rapport, perhaps, is the most important technique that investigators use,” and government agencies require a “staff of professional officers skilled as conversationalists and rapport developers.”
If there is a national secret police entity in America, those employees might be informed that some of the easiest people for the FBI or local secret police to establish rapport with and thus go after, deceive, and “mitigate” are their own employees or others who cooperate in secret operations, while the employees or cooperators think they are going after someone else. If your boss and co-workers require you to lie to other people, then your boss and co-workers might also lie to you.
Either way, it seems reasonable to suggest that most Americans should be taught and thoroughly study the guidelines on FBI undercover operations.
Image: Federal Bureau of Investigation, via Flickr // PDM 1.0 DEED | public domain
Obviously, Garland and his cronies know exactly what they’re doing. They’re enabling vote fraud, surely to ensure illegal immigrants can vote in the millions to put over the electoral finish line a man most legal Americans know is demented. In the process, they’re insulting America’s poor and black citizens, branding them too stupid to obtain identification necessary for daily life. Reasonable people might call that racist.
It all starts at the top. Joe Biden has made a career out of using the government and the legal system to attack his political enemies. He has the backing of the Justice Department, the FBI, and the IRS. Trump supporters Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, Roger Stone, and Peter Navarro have seen their civil rights disappear. The same goes for the January 6th defendants.
Destroying the American system of justice
Some days I think I must be dreaming. Two deranged “public servants” -- the vindictive New York State attorney general and a leftist judge with a bad haircut -- are being given free rein to subvert our justice system by placing titanic barriers against the Republican nominee’s ability to run for president. What is happening to our country and who will stop it?
How is it possible that someone with Trump’s extraordinary accomplishments can be brought down by two vile and inconsequential persons such as Letitia James and Arthur Engoron? Their lawsuit has the support of, and is the consequence of, the Democratic Party’s efforts to interfere with the 2024 presidential election.
To begin with, James’ fraud case against Trump is a farce. There is no crime and no victim. No one has been harmed. It is purely a weaponization of the legal system for political ends. As Shark Tank investor Kevin O’Leary has observed, what Trump is alleged to have done -- overvalue his real estate properties when applying for a bank loan -- is normal business practice all over the globe. The bank made money and is anxious to do business with him again.
Thanks to a publicity-hungry, overtly anti-Trump judge, James’ phony indictment has been backed up with an unheard-of $460-million judgment. And they want it now. No one has that kind of cash floating around. Unless he comes up with an impossible-to-obtain bond, Trump is precluded from his right to appeal.
Without waiting for the outcome of an appeal, James wants to seize Trump’s real estate holdings. Adding insult to injury, Judge Engoron has ordered a court to oversee the Trump organization for a minimum of three years. This is the Soviet-style textbook for “How to Take Down a Billionaire.”
If the Democrats can get away with this partisan assault on someone like Donald Trump, imagine what they will do to you and me in pursuit of their leftist policies. The American public is no longer protected by due process and the rule of law. The rule has just changed to, “Whatever the Democrats want.”
It all starts at the top. Joe Biden has made a career out of using the government and the legal system to attack his political enemies. He has the backing of the Justice Department, the FBI, and the IRS. Trump supporters Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, Roger Stone, and Peter Navarro have seen their civil rights disappear. The same goes for the January 6th defendants.
There is a glimmer of hope. The James/Engoron anti-Trump judgment could be overturned by the New York State Appellate Division. It would be a massive miscarriage of justice if it is not overturned, but given the Democratic Party’s hold on New York judges and juries, the judgment may be upheld. Even if it is overturned, Trump will have been irreparably harmed by the seizure of his assets.
If the Democrats succeed in destroying Trump, the doors will be open to perverting the legal system as required for the leftist agenda of the Democratic Party. In short, we will have a one-party state and America’s justice system will be history.
Will anyone stop them? “The whole world is watching,” said Kevin O’Leary. “Where are the adults in this crazy narrative? We need an adult in the room. This is the United States of America under siege.”
Ed Brodow is a conservative political commentator and author of two No. 1 Amazon Best Sellers, AMERICA ON ITS KNEES: The Cost of Replacing Trump with Biden, and THE WAR ON WHITES: How Hating White People Became the New National Sport.
Image: Library of Congress
It certainly worked for Biden in 2020, and his Attorney General, Merrick Garland, arguably the most corrupt and weaponized in history—that’s saying something with Obama’s “wingman,” Eric Holder in the running—is working hard to keep that organization up and running:
The DOJ sued DISH network for $3.3 billion but dismissed the suit after its chair donated to Biden
Two sayings are pertinent to this essay. The first is that correlation does not imply causation. Just because two events seem connected doesn’t mean they are. The second is that timing is everything. Think about both as you consider the Department of Justice’s decision to dismiss a massive corporate fraud lawsuit a short time after the corporation’s founder made a sizable donation to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.
DISH Network is an American satellite network. In 2015, the DOJ sued DISH under the False Claims Act. The suit was based on Whistleblower Vermont National Telephone Company, Inc.’s allegation that DISH and its affiliates were allegedly using fraud to get small business discounts for wireless spectrum licenses. As recently as November 2023, a federal judge kept the case alive in the face of DISH’s motion for a judgment on the pleadings (i.e., DISH contended that the DOJ’s complaint contained within it the seeds of its own destruction).
On December 15, 2023, less than one month after the federal court refused to dismiss the DOJ’s suit, one of DISH’s founders, Charlie Ergen, along with his wife, Candy, donated a total of $113,200 to keep Biden in the White House…and, inevitably, to keep his currently constituted Department of Justice in power.
Image: A downed DISH receiver by frankieleon. CC BY 2.0.
On January 10, 2024, only three-and-a-half weeks after Ergen sent his money to Biden, and while the fraud suit was still pending, DISH received $50 million in taxpayer funds when the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration announced an $80 million round of five grants. The other four grantees divided the remaining $30 million in grant money.
A mere two days after the $50 million grant, the attorney for Vermont Telephone, which had triggered the DOJ’s initial action against DISH, complained that the DOJ was putting pressure on Vermont Telephone to enter into “an unethical settlement” or it would dismiss the suit:
The move to dismiss the case scrapped plans to depose the Ergens about their knowledge of the allegedly fraudulent scheme, prompting Vermont Telephone’s attorneys to accuse the Justice Department of political interference.
“[I]t appears that the effect — if not the purpose — of the DOJ’s rush to seek dismissal of this case is to protect Mr. Ergen from being questioned under oath,” Ross wrote in a Feb. 8 letter to the lead DOJ attorneys handling the case, according to a copy reviewed by The Post.
“We do not believe it is a coincidence that Mr. Ergen, his wife (who also is scheduled to be deposed next week), and DISH’s Political Action Committee collectively contributed in excess of $5 million to Democratic candidates and causes between 2008 and 2022,” he added.
“With the upcoming election, this case looks like just the latest example of the DOJ’s two-tiered justice system under which the well-heeled, politically connected are treated one way, while everyone else is treated differently.”
The last item in this chronology is that on March 8, the DOJ moved to dismiss the case. You can read more details about the whole case, from its inception to the motion to dismiss, in this New York Post article. Indeed, the article is worth reading as an expose about how corporate money and politics work in D.C., with most money flowing to Democrats but surprisingly large sums keeping individual Republicans afloat.
As I noted at the start of this post, just because there seems to be a connection between things, that doesn’t mean there is a connection. The chronology suggests that, once Ergen started throwing large sums of money at a sitting president whose re-election campaign is in trouble, that same president told his Department of Justice to lay off his good friend. It could just be, though, that the case has been kicking about for years so that the DOJ decided it was time to unload it because it was hogging resources without any discernable benefit to the American people.
But as always, timing is everything, and the appearance of impropriety can be just as powerful as actual impropriety. We’ve long known that Garland’s DOJ is driven by politics, not principle. Now, we have the strong suggestion that it can be bought, too.
Attorney General Garland promises election lawfare
Who can forget October of 2020, when Joe Biden committed a gaffe? He certainly does that more or less constantly, but this one was a classic, because a gaffe is properly defined as what happens when a politician accidently tells the truth:
‘We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics,’ Biden said in the video.
It certainly worked for Biden in 2020, and his Attorney General, Merrick Garland, arguably the most corrupt and weaponized in history—that’s saying something with Obama’s “wingman,” Eric Holder in the running—is working hard to keep that organization up and running:
Speaking [in March of 2024] to a predominantly African-American crowd at a Black Selma church service, [AG Merrick Garland] said:
The right to vote is still under attack, and that is why the Justice Department is fighting back. We are challenging efforts by states and jurisdictions who implement discriminatory, burdensome, and unnecessary restrictions on access to the ballot, including those related to mail-in voting, the use of drop boxes and voter ID requirements.
No, AG Garland, the right to vote is NOT under attack. Georgia, which passed its reform laws after the 2020 election and invited a boycott of woke companies, including Major League Baseball (which canceled the All-Star game in Atlanta), reported that more voters and more minority voters participated in the 2022 elections than at any time in Georgia history. Even Stacey Abrams, the losing candidate for governor in 2018, who never conceded her defeat and became a media darling, accepted that she lost her rematch against Brian Kemp.
How is it possible the chief law enforcement officer in America doesn’t know drop boxes, refusing to enforce ID laws and mail-in ballots are among the best methods of cheating? Or perhaps he does…
Is it possible AG Garland is unaware of the Supreme Court’s 2008 Crawford .v Marion County Election Board decision? NBC was aware, and disappointed:
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws. [skip]
The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy.
Is it possible AG Garland, and the entire DOJ is unable to use Internet search engines, like the engine that provided the URLs I’ve embedded? Or is it more likely they’re simply ignoring the Supreme Court, which they’ve proved more than willing to do? Not every state has voter ID laws. Is Garland worried there aren’t enough states without them to provide the necessary margin of voter fraud for 2024?
Beyond experience and common, adult, sense, there is substantial evidence drop boxes and mail-on balloting are primary sources of virtually untraceable vote fraud. How can it be Garland and the DOJ Voting Rights Section don’t know that? And if that’s so, if they really are that incompetent, that unaware of human and political nature, how is it there are apparently no other attorneys in the entire DOJ who have not set them straight?
Obviously, Garland and his cronies know exactly what they’re doing. They’re enabling vote fraud, surely to ensure illegal immigrants can vote in the millions to put over the electoral finish line a man most legal Americans know is demented. In the process, they’re insulting America’s poor and black citizens, branding them too stupid to obtain identification necessary for daily life. Reasonable people might call that racist.
Reasonable people might also think our republic is better off if people who can’t get identification, and can’t be bothered to get to the polls on election day, don’t vote. Obviously, people who have legitimate reasons for being unable to be present on election day, like our military serving overseas and the handicapped, must be allowed absentee ballots, but with effective safeguards and verification.
Using taxpayer resources and the power of the federal government to violate Supreme Court decisions and enable vote fraud on a never before imagined scale is among the most un-American, anti-republican acts of a thoroughly corrupt administration. Reasonable people might call that tyrannical. And they’d be right, and consistent. They’re absolutely perpetuating “the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.”
That’s great for “our democracy—a permanent, one-party, Democrat/socialist/communist state, but terrible for our constitutional, representative republic. I wonder if Garland has heard about that?
Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, life-long athlete, firearm instructor, retired police officer and high school and college English teacher. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.
Graphic: X screenshot
Ketanji Brown Jackson is a fascist who should be removed from the Court
Ketanji Brown Jackson, is concerned the First Amendment is “hamstringing the government.”
That’s a 5-alarm fire of a pull-quote from a sitting Supreme Court justice, and she should absolutely be impeached and removed from the Court over it. I’m as serious as a heart attack here. Nearly every sentence of this single thought of hers adds up to textbook fascism, (a hybrid economic system in which the private economy exists but under strict state regulations, and must give way to the national interest, which is whatever the government says it is.) So, let’s go. First the full quote, directly from the SCOTUS transcript, followed by seven handpicked doozies worth analyzing:
JUSTICE JACKSON: So my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods. I mean, what would -- what would you have the government do? I’ve heard you say a couple times that the government can post its own speech, but in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not safe, don’t do it, is not going to get it done. And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. So can you help me? Because I’m really -- I’m really worried about that because you’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government’s perspective and you’re saying that the government can’t interact with the source of those problems.
“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government….”
Really? Your biggest concern is how the First Amendment hamstrings… the federal government? No, honey. No. Your biggest concern should be the federal government hamstringing the First Amendment. You have it exactly backwards. The “charter of negative liberties” is exactly that for a reason, intentionally crafted to restrict the government’s ability to deprive the people of their essential liberties. The entire point of the Bill of Rights is to “hamstring” the federal government; how does she not understand this down to her bones?
Also, what do we not understand about censoring ideas here? Suppressing tweets is the new book burning, and how’d that work out?
2. “What would you have the government do?”
Are you kidding? Government has the biggest microphone imaginable to make her case; granted, it’s hard to make a case against the very legal foundation of the United States, but persuasion is a big part of the job one asks for when one asks to do the people’s work. Because what comes after persuasion? That’s right: force. So you’d better be good at the former. that’s the job she asked for when she asked to do the people’s work. Now if it’s compelling, the people will heed it; if it’s not, then it’s a weak argument. Don’t ask for such an awesome responsibility if you’re not up to the task, and definitely don’t ask for it if your first impulse is to suffocate it until it stops bothering you.
3. “In my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not safe, don’t do it, is not going to get it done.”
That’s what parents are for. The end.
4. “Some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country….”
Yes, from each other. From murder and mayhem. Not from ourselves. I’m a born-free American. I don’t need you to babysit me. I’m perfectly capable of sorting through information to make a reasoned decision. The solution to “dangerous” speech is more speech, not less, as Justice Brandeis so famously intoned when he said, “To expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied [to speech one does not like] is more speech, not enforced silence.”
Image created by author using public domain photo.
5. “You seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information.”
Damned right. Government is force. The simplest ask from the federal government to (any company, but in this case) a social media company to police opinions it does not like carries with it an implicit — if not explicit — “or else.” How does this have to be explained? To anyone?
6. “I’m really worried… you’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government’s perspective…”
Good. When the government feels threatened, when it fears the people, there is Liberty. And once again, we have to notice her baseline impulse is to protect government—not you, not me, and not the people. It’s not like the Feds are lacking any kind of influence whatsoever or at risk of being tyrannized by... tweets. Opinions. Good grief.
7. “You’re saying that the government can’t interact with the source of those problems.”
Girlfriend’s got the “source” wrong. It’s not social media; it’s us. In her mind, whether she knows it or not, or would admit it or not, we, the people, are “the source of those problems.” Us and all our messy Liberty. Talking to each other. Debating. Arguing. Over this, over that. Ew. No wonder she’s upset.
Sarcasm aside, that really is her problem here. We the people. Until social media came along, the institutional left had near monolithic operational control of every information dispensing organ in the country: television, print, movies, education, and the federal bureaucracy. If they wanted to propagandize us, they could quite literally go full court press, with every quarter singing from the same songbook. But with Twitter and Facebook? Our opinions could be widely shared in a nationwide town square, and maybe even go viral—the left couldn’t have that!
So what did they do? Well, as was revealed in The Twitter Files, the Feds had a 21st Century “bat phone” they could pick up anytime they saw a post they didn’t like to “encourage” and “pressure” those agreeable companies into doing the government’s bidding. Tony Soprano would’ve loved that bat phone.
Because that’s textbook mafia fascism. For reals. The real thing. F-A-S-C-I-S-M. How KBJ does not understand this, all of this — down to her bones — is breathtaking.
Americans, freedom-loving Americans, who have been properly raised to understand our Constitution and cherish our inherent liberties would never, ever, in a million years, lament that the First Amendment had “hamstrung” government.
I would suggest that Ms. Jackson be brought in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee and asked to clarify her views on the First Amendment, but we don’t want to set an abusable precedent. We don’t want justices afraid to ask questions during argument, and we don’t want them hauled before the very committee which was supposed to have vetted them thoroughly simply for asking one — albeit alarming — question.
However (and this is a big however), when that question exposes a foundational, fundamental, bedrock ignorance, dare we say inversion, of our first, most cherished principle, our soul’s right to breathe, that’s absolutely impeachable.
They’ll never do it of course. The entire Republican conference put together lacks the testicular fortitude of one Nancy Pelosi all by her diminutive self. So I guess all we can do is wag a finger and say shame on the Senate for not doing the due diligence we just did here. They could have mined her thoughts on every amendment. They didn’t. It’s too late for that, but it needs to be noted, for the record, that they gave us a Supreme Court justice whose first impulse is to worry about the federal government, and since they won’t remove her, every senator who voted for her must be removed, held accountable to us, those unruly, opinionated people.
Image: Public domain.
Are ‘Brown Shirt’ laws coming to America?
In a recent move that has ignited both support and controversy, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed a series of bills that would have potentially opened the door for illegal immigrants to serve as police officers. This decision stands in stark contrast to the policies we might have seen under former Governor Ralph Northam, highlighting a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over immigration policy and law enforcement qualifications in the United States.
The action taken by Governor Youngkin brings to the forefront a significant concern regarding the integrity and standards of law enforcement agencies. At its core, the debate is not merely about the legal status of individuals but about the prerequisites for holding positions of authority and trust in our communities. The governor’s veto is seen by many as a stand to uphold the rule of law and ensure that those entrusted to enforce it are themselves in compliance with our country’s laws.
Image by AI.
This decision, however, also touches upon a broader and more contentious discussion. I refer to the proposed legislative changes as “brown shirt laws.” This term draws a chilling parallel to how Adolf Hitler’s SA (Sturmabteilung or Storm Detachment) disrupted the established order in Nazi Germany, replacing traditional law enforcement with forces loyal to Nazi ideology. This historical analogy serves as a cautionary tale of the dangers when the lines between law enforcement, immigration policy, and political agendas become blurred. The term “brown shirt laws” I’ve coined denotes the potential deputizing of police officers who are illegal aliens, evoking the risks of undermining the legitimacy and authority of law enforcement through political and ideological influence.
The concern is that by potentially lowering the standards or altering the prerequisites for those in law enforcement roles to include individuals who are not legally residing in the country, states could inadvertently undermine the authority and legitimacy of their police forces. Such measures, critics argue, could lead to a scenario where the enforcement of laws is influenced by political and ideological considerations rather than the principles of justice and equality under the law.
It is crucial, therefore, to approach this issue with a balanced perspective. Immigration is undeniably a complex and multifaceted issue, requiring compassionate and comprehensive solutions. The contributions of immigrants to our communities are vast and varied, and many have demonstrated a profound commitment to upholding the values and laws of the United States. However, the proposition to allow individuals who have not obtained legal status to hold positions of authority in law enforcement poses fundamental questions about the criteria for such roles and the message it sends about adherence to the laws of the land.
As states across the country grapple with these questions, it is essential that the dialogue remains focused on ensuring the safety, security, and integrity of our communities. The lessons of history remind us of the need to safeguard the institutions of law enforcement from becoming tools of political expediency. In this light, Governor Youngkin’s veto is not merely a statement on immigration policy but a reflection on the broader issues of governance, law, and the enduring values upon which our society is built, ultimately affirming the paramount importance of the rule of law.
Michael Letts is the founder, President, and CEO of InVest USA, a charitable organization that provides bulletproof vests to police officers.
Barely-there Joe Biden and his vindictive Attorney General Merrick Garland haven’t weaponized the justice system to persecute conservatives, freedom-lovers, Christians, Trump, and his voters; they have implemented “supportive framework conditions” that helpfully disarm, censor, and imprison any American who resists the Deep State. Yes siree, governing is easy when the Ethics Council condones property confiscation, coercion, and controlled speech!
Globalism Thrives on Crisis
Globalists know that nothing drives public policy so much as the fear of impending death. Nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles may have scared the snot out of anyone living through the Cold War, but they were (and still are) the gifts that keep on giving for the military-industrial complex and national security surveillance State. The more catastrophic the consequences of any perceived threat, the more likely that otherwise skeptical human beings will hand over their freedoms in exchange for the elusive promise of personal security. Political systems specialize in exploiting this “Save Me!” impulse for maximum leverage. “Looming apocalypse” is Big Government’s best salesman every year.
Ghost stories about “global warming” work the same way. If voters can be convinced that their economic freedom is leading to humanity’s extinction, then they will accept costly regulations and “green energy”-induced inflation. If they can be brainwashed into believing that hydrocarbon energy is evil, then they will actively protest for a future with intermittent yet expensive electric power. If they can be deluded into thinking that only politicians and central bankers can save the planet, then they will embrace communism in order to fight “climate change.” Given the fact that Earth’s climate is always naturally changing — whether humans are alive to notice or not — governments’ success in conditioning gullible people to fear every change in the weather has been remarkably effective in creating voluntary slaves.
It’s also no surprise that UN Secretary-General António Guterres and other doomsayer charlatans are now hyperventilating about “global boiling.” Generations who were told they would die decades ago have learned to discount apocalyptic warnings. Human experience creates a natural immunity to bullsh*t. Conversely, totalitarianism succeeds only when society’s level of anxiety can be ratcheted up well above eleventy! That’s why every iteration of the so-called “climate emergency” must sound more scary than the last. It’s also why each new season of “Climate Change: the Coming Armageddon” targets children who have never seen old episodes of the boring series. It may be the longest running television program of all time, but ignorant youths — who cannot imagine that their governments would ever lie to them — fall for the dying planet horror show every time.
This is the kind of madness that “green” false prophets perpetrate upon unsuspecting peoples — stoking irrational fears in a misanthropic and Machiavellian quest for raw power. Twentieth-century totalitarians also came to power by spreading madness and inflaming irrational fears. Whereas Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao obsessed over foreign ideas, capitalist leanings, religious beliefs, and racial impurities, today’s globalists obsess over hydrocarbons, “white supremacy,” and “hate” speech. Future generations will see no distinction. Just like the monsters of the past, today’s Deep State agents seize power by manufacturing emergencies. Dictators always arrive on triumphal chariots that run on lies.
The German Deep State is similar to the American Deep State — in that both love to lecture the world about “democracy” and “freedom” while censoring conservatives’ speech, criminalizing political dissent, spewing propaganda, and manipulating elections. Both also have a penchant for creating committees and agencies that engage in behaviors they pretend to police — disinformation boards that spread lies, humanitarian aid groups that foment war, pro-democracy coalitions that seek to ban political groups and public debate. For the German and American Deep States, language is a weapon for deceiving the people.
In one particularly laughable example, German law mandates the operation of an Ethics Council — an independent body of “experts” — that seems dedicated to finding ways to justify the government’s unethical behaviors. How do you convince people to accept unscientific lockdowns and experimental “vaccines”? Tell them that a nonpartisan crew of credentialed “experts” has checked for ethical landmines and determined that everything’s hunky-dory. A few weeks ago, the morality Star Chamber published an opinion about “Climate Justice” that lays the groundwork for a future when all German activity will be strictly monitored for carbon-rationing compliance: “On grounds of justice, it can be morally required to contribute to measures to tackle climate change. If one’s own exercise of freedom interferes in an unjust manner with the freedom and welfare of others or of future generations, for example through consumption that is harmful to the climate, the authorities may intervene with restrictions of freedom.”
As with all Deep State initiatives that say one thing while doing its opposite, Germany’s Ethics Council promises the public that it is wholly opposed to suspending “democratic freedoms” but encourages the government to create “supportive framework conditions” — including carbon taxes, personal emissions limits, product bans, and “compensatory payments” to “ongoing neo-colonial dependencies” — that will nudge Germans to do the right thing. Ahh, nothing says freedom like new taxes, forced redistribution of wealth, regulatory kicks to the groin, financial blackmail, and total personal surveillance! Just because the government holds a gun to the back of your head while you make decisions doesn’t mean you are any less free — the unethical Ethics Council says so!
There’s something so spectacularly German about the morality police redefining totalitarianism as merely “supportive framework conditions.” Who could argue against a “supportive framework”? It’s the kind of linguistic chicanery that other Western nations will readily mimic. Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau didn’t confiscate the bank accounts of Freedom Convoy protesters in order to quell dissent and chill free speech; he was merely creating “supportive framework conditions” for their abject submission. Australia and New Zealand didn’t set up Stasi roadblocks, checkpoints, and involuntary detainment camps during the Great COVID Hoax; they simply constructed a “supportive framework” for a functioning police State. Barely-there Joe Biden and his vindictive Attorney General Merrick Garland haven’t weaponized the justice system to persecute conservatives, freedom-lovers, Christians, Trump, and his voters; they have implemented “supportive framework conditions” that helpfully disarm, censor, and imprison any American who resists the Deep State. Yes siree, governing is easy when the Ethics Council condones property confiscation, coercion, and controlled speech!
At the end of the day, globalism thrives on crisis. It is a political philosophy in perpetual search of apocalyptic threats that can be used as expedient pretexts for justifying why a small cabal of financial titans and global elites should exercise total control over local communities. Crisis is its brand, its currency, and its product. For globalism to persist, no crisis can ever be solved unless a new one is on its way.
The inherently destructive nature of globalism has left the public in a permanent state of anticipatory dread. Roughly two-thirds of Americans not only expect a third world war to break out within the next decade but also believe nuclear conflagration is inevitable. The idea that the American Deep State will instigate some kind of “false flag” incident prior to the 2024 election is discussed as broadly among well-known public figures as it is among ordinary commenters online. Catherine Herridge, Ron Paul, Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson, and General Mike Flynn have all expressed concern that an unforeseen “Black Swan” event will occur before the end of the year. Flynn says forthrightly that globalists will conclude, “Look, there’s no way in the world that [Biden] can win a legitimate, fair election, so let’s not have one.” And “in order to not have one,” the Deep State will “create the conditions” to produce that “outcome.”
That nuclear war, election rigging, and “Black Swan” disasters are spoken of so matter-of-factly reflects an almost fatalistic consensus that everything will soon fall apart. In other words, globalism has largely succeeded in cultivating a pervasive expectation of our impending social death. That’s an astonishing indictment of the path Western leaders have forged over the last century. As they have burned the world to the ground, their legacy is general misery. For free and happy people to live, globalism must surely die.
Image via Picryl.
JOE BIDEN'S GESTOPO MAN IS GAMER LAWYER MERRICK GARLAND WHO IS IN CHARAGE OF PUSHING THE BIDEN FASCIST REGIME AND PURSUNG BIDEN'S MANY POLITICAL AND NON-POLITICAL ENEMIES - THINK PRO-LIFERS!
It certainly worked for Biden in 2020, and his Attorney General, Merrick Garland, arguably the most corrupt and weaponized in history—that’s saying something with Obama’s “wingman,” Eric Holder in the running—is working hard to keep that organization up and running:
The U.S. government document is entitled “The Attorney General’s Guidelines on Federal Bureau of Investigation Undercover Operations.”
The FBI's Otherwise Illegal Activity
How deeply is law enforcement interfering in the daily lives of American citizens?
For example, it was recently reported that the FBI labeled Americans who “support the biological basis for sex and gender distinction as potential domestic terrorists.”
Then what? What does the FBI, and those who cooperate with the FBI, do to such Americans?
Does the FBI label FBI employees who support biology as potential terrorists? Or, is the FBI saying that no FBI employees support the biological basis for sex and gender distinction?
The FBI and local police keep their specific actions, methods, and technologies mostly secret; thus, one cannot say with certainty what occurs after the FBI labels a person as a potential domestic terrorist.
Americans might study the history of the FBI and local police cooperating with the FBI for hints about what might occur after being labeled as a potential domestic terrorist. One might closely study the “Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, 1975-76.” The secret actions of the FBI and police cooperating with the FBI were summarized as follows:
...intelligence activity in the past decades has, all too often, exceeded the restraints on the exercise of governmental power which are imposed by our country's Constitution, laws, and traditions […]
Intelligence activity […] is generally covert. It is concealed from its victims and is seldom described in statutes or explicit executive orders. The victim may never suspect that his misfortunes are the intended result of activities undertaken by his government, and accordingly may have no opportunity to challenge the actions taken against him. (Pages 2-3)
Government employees have harmed Americans – caused them “misfortunes” – in the past. American citizens did not even know such harm was intentionally done to them, nor did they know it was government employees who secretly harmed them. Would current government employees do such things?
Now, if one is familiar with the above Senate Committee from the 1970s, one might respond by saying something like, “yeah, but the FBI was going after gangsters, druggies, commies, and groups who were racist against Caucasians. They were going after some murderers. I’m not in any of those groups, I just believe a man is a man and want to watch basketball!”
It is not clear how to convince such people other than by trying to argue from common sense.
There is the phenomenon of government officials, particularly those in fear of losing their ability to control others, creating a government entity or technology initially described as being good – say, to protect the citizens from terrorists, communists, gangsters, etc.
The government entity employs millions of people, again attempting to convince the citizens that the secret policing entity or technology is a great thing.
After the technology or government entity is fully operational and widespread, and after millions of people are fully dependent on government welfare disguised as government employment in the secret policing entity, then those few people (who could be in another country) in charge of the government then are able to control the masses.
Again, it is common sense: some government officials try to convince citizens something is good (surveillance technologies, secret police entity, etc.) and then use it to control and harm the citizens.
While the specific actions and technologies of the FBI and other secretly operating entities are mostly not publicized, there is one U.S. government document which suggests possible actions of the FBI.
The U.S. government document is entitled “The Attorney General’s Guidelines on Federal Bureau of Investigation Undercover Operations.”
Those guidelines importantly mention that FBI operations might involve local police or “local law enforcement agency working under the direction and control of the FBI.”
Additionally, the guidelines mention that the FBI is apparently allowed to secretly own and operate businesses and corporations, make “untrue representations” of other peoples’ actions, and engage “in activity having a significant effect on or constituting a significant intrusion into the legitimate operation of a Federal, state, or local governmental entity.”
Does the FBI “engage in activity having a significant effect on” juries, U.S. Congress, the presidency, or the Supreme Court? Does the FBI engage “in activity having a significant effect on or constituting a significant intrusion into the legitimate” national and local elections?
The FBI guidelines apparently also suggest employees and cooperators might “supply falsely sworn testimony or false documentation in any legal or administrative proceeding” and the FBI and others might commit “otherwise illegal activity,” apparently including “violence or physical injury to individuals or a significant risk of financial loss.”
Those guidelines on FBI operations seem to imply that there are many people in cities throughout America employed as secret government operatives who present themselves as everyday citizens but might actually be participating in schemes or “mitigating opportunities.”
Finally, another potential method publicized by the FBI and others is establishing rapport, which means friendly relationship enabling communication, with people they target. FBI wrote that “Building rapport, perhaps, is the most important technique that investigators use,” and government agencies require a “staff of professional officers skilled as conversationalists and rapport developers.”
If there is a national secret police entity in America, those employees might be informed that some of the easiest people for the FBI or local secret police to establish rapport with and thus go after, deceive, and “mitigate” are their own employees or others who cooperate in secret operations, while the employees or cooperators think they are going after someone else. If your boss and co-workers require you to lie to other people, then your boss and co-workers might also lie to you.
Either way, it seems reasonable to suggest that most Americans should be taught and thoroughly study the guidelines on FBI undercover operations.
Image: Federal Bureau of Investigation, via Flickr // PDM 1.0 DEED | public domain
Obviously, Garland and his cronies know exactly what they’re doing. They’re enabling vote fraud, surely to ensure illegal immigrants can vote in the millions to put over the electoral finish line a man most legal Americans know is demented. In the process, they’re insulting America’s poor and black citizens, branding them too stupid to obtain identification necessary for daily life. Reasonable people might call that racist.
It all starts at the top. Joe Biden has made a career out of using the government and the legal system to attack his political enemies. He has the backing of the Justice Department, the FBI, and the IRS. Trump supporters Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, Roger Stone, and Peter Navarro have seen their civil rights disappear. The same goes for the January 6th defendants.
Destroying the American system of justice
Some days I think I must be dreaming. Two deranged “public servants” -- the vindictive New York State attorney general and a leftist judge with a bad haircut -- are being given free rein to subvert our justice system by placing titanic barriers against the Republican nominee’s ability to run for president. What is happening to our country and who will stop it?
How is it possible that someone with Trump’s extraordinary accomplishments can be brought down by two vile and inconsequential persons such as Letitia James and Arthur Engoron? Their lawsuit has the support of, and is the consequence of, the Democratic Party’s efforts to interfere with the 2024 presidential election.
To begin with, James’ fraud case against Trump is a farce. There is no crime and no victim. No one has been harmed. It is purely a weaponization of the legal system for political ends. As Shark Tank investor Kevin O’Leary has observed, what Trump is alleged to have done -- overvalue his real estate properties when applying for a bank loan -- is normal business practice all over the globe. The bank made money and is anxious to do business with him again.
Thanks to a publicity-hungry, overtly anti-Trump judge, James’ phony indictment has been backed up with an unheard-of $460-million judgment. And they want it now. No one has that kind of cash floating around. Unless he comes up with an impossible-to-obtain bond, Trump is precluded from his right to appeal.
Without waiting for the outcome of an appeal, James wants to seize Trump’s real estate holdings. Adding insult to injury, Judge Engoron has ordered a court to oversee the Trump organization for a minimum of three years. This is the Soviet-style textbook for “How to Take Down a Billionaire.”
If the Democrats can get away with this partisan assault on someone like Donald Trump, imagine what they will do to you and me in pursuit of their leftist policies. The American public is no longer protected by due process and the rule of law. The rule has just changed to, “Whatever the Democrats want.”
It all starts at the top. Joe Biden has made a career out of using the government and the legal system to attack his political enemies. He has the backing of the Justice Department, the FBI, and the IRS. Trump supporters Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, Roger Stone, and Peter Navarro have seen their civil rights disappear. The same goes for the January 6th defendants.
There is a glimmer of hope. The James/Engoron anti-Trump judgment could be overturned by the New York State Appellate Division. It would be a massive miscarriage of justice if it is not overturned, but given the Democratic Party’s hold on New York judges and juries, the judgment may be upheld. Even if it is overturned, Trump will have been irreparably harmed by the seizure of his assets.
If the Democrats succeed in destroying Trump, the doors will be open to perverting the legal system as required for the leftist agenda of the Democratic Party. In short, we will have a one-party state and America’s justice system will be history.
Will anyone stop them? “The whole world is watching,” said Kevin O’Leary. “Where are the adults in this crazy narrative? We need an adult in the room. This is the United States of America under siege.”
Ed Brodow is a conservative political commentator and author of two No. 1 Amazon Best Sellers, AMERICA ON ITS KNEES: The Cost of Replacing Trump with Biden, and THE WAR ON WHITES: How Hating White People Became the New National Sport.
Image: Library of Congress
It certainly worked for Biden in 2020, and his Attorney General, Merrick Garland, arguably the most corrupt and weaponized in history—that’s saying something with Obama’s “wingman,” Eric Holder in the running—is working hard to keep that organization up and running:
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
