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.
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.
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.”
THERE IS NO GREATER THREAT TO TO THE DEMOCRAT PARTY OPERATED BY GAMER PARASITE LAWYERS THAN FREE SPEECH. THEY ARE DETERMINED TO SABOTAGE FREE SPEECH AT EVERY CORNER JUST AS THEY DO OUR BORDERS OPEN TO UNREGISTERED DEM VOTERS
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.
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.”
.jpg){kind=link}
No comments:
Post a Comment