Design a site like this with
Get started

VIDEO Sheriff under the gun for cuffing, strip searching citizen reporter

Government can’t ‘single out journalists because they don’t like their viewpoint’

By Bob Unruh December 11, 2022

A Texas sheriff and his deputies have been sued for arresting a citizen journalist whose views the sheriff opposed.

The case has been brought by the Institute for Justice against Fort Bend County officials on behalf of Justin Pulliam.

He was “standing still when a Fort Bend County deputy walked up and arrested him for interfering with the police in December 2021,” the legal team explained.

“While Justin had permission from the property owner to record a mental health call and was far from the active scene, the deputy cuffed him and put him in a squad car. Justin was forced to undergo a strip search and spent several hours in jail, during which the sheriff personally called Justin in for a meeting and became angry when Justin refused to speak to him without a lawyer present,” the IJ said.

“Arresting and prosecuting Justin is a violation of his First Amendment rights, and it can’t stand,” explained Tori Clark, a lawyer for the IJ. “The sheriff may not like Justin’s style, but the government doesn’t have the power to single out journalists because they don’t like their viewpoint.”

The IJ confirmed Pulliam previously had conflicts with Sheriff Eric Fagan, a Democrat.

In 2021, he was excluded from a press conference with Fagan at the sheriff’s specific order.

But, the IJ said, “The First Amendment prohibits government officials from unreasonably restricting an individual’s right to record the police, and it doesn’t let them decide who is or isn’t a journalist.”

Pulliam reports on everything in his community from city council meetings to vehicle accidents.

His videos are uploaded onto his YouTube channels, such as Corruption Report, and other social-media sites.

“Sheriff Fagan is unfairly discriminating against me because I sometimes criticize the police and other government officials,” he said. “It’s outrageous that I was harassed, arrested and prosecuted for exercising our constitutionally protected rights to film and report about activities by public officials from a different perspective. Filming the police makes communities safer and increases accountability.”

Pulliam was filming a police encounter with a mentally ill man when arrested.

The IJ explained, “As part of his project to instill more accountability and transparency into the actions of public officials, Justin tracks calls on a scanner and drives to the scene to document law enforcement responses. His particular focus is on recording calls where no one was accused of a crime, such as mental health checks. Afterward, his videos are uploaded onto his YouTube channel, Corruption Report. Justin’s viewpoint is clear: He is suspicious of authority and doesn’t take kindly to government officials who want to hide from the public.”

The IJ pointed out that the officers are not using body cams that would document their actions.

The IJ’s arguments are that “the First Amendment prohibits government officials from unreasonably restricting an individual’s right to record police activities, and it doesn’t let them decide who is or isn’t a journalist. The Constitution also prohibits officials from arresting or retaliating against individuals who exercise their free-speech rights.”

VIDEO DISAPPEARED Award winning journalist goes missing after FBI raids home -Newsmax Bans Logan, Fires Stinchfield – Press Part of Intel

Ultimate censorship CCP/ USSR Style

by Brady Knox, Breaking News Reporter | October 19, 2022

An award-winning national security producer has gone missing after the FBI raided his home months ago.

James Gordon Meek disappeared without a trace back in April following a mysterious, heavily-armed raid on his Washington, D.C., penthouse apartment, Rolling Stone reported on Tuesday. The reasons for the raid and his disappearance, as well as his current whereabouts, appear to be totally unknown by the public.

“He fell off the face of the Earth,” a former colleague told the news outlet. “And people asked, but no one knew the answer.”

Meek was a credentialed journalist for ABC News, having won several awards for breaking several major cases, including uncovering a United States military cover-up of the deaths of four Special Forces soldiers in Niger, which he made into a documentary, 3212 Un-Redacted. He is also a former senior counterterrorism adviser and investigator for the House Homeland Security Committee and was working on a book about the Biden administration’s withdrawal from Afghanistan.


The FBI raid on his apartment in April involved at least 10 “heavily armed” agents, occupying several unmarked vehicles, including an armored tactical vehicle that an eyewitness said could have easily been mistaken for a tank, the report said, citing Meek’s neighbor John Antonelli. The whole operation was estimated to have taken around 10 minutes.

Sources familiar with the subject told Rolling Stone they weren’t aware if the FBI took Meek away during the raid or if he left on his own accord. Still, he hasn’t been seen since. These sources also claim that the FBI found classified material on his laptop.

In a statement to Rolling Stone, Meek’s lawyer said that Meek is “unaware” of allegations that he possesses classified documents but that if he did, it would be well within his scope as an investigative reporter. Whatever the case, he hasn’t been charged with any crime. The statement made no mention of Meek’s whereabouts.

An FBI representative seemed to confirm the raid to the news outlet, saying agents were present on the morning of April 27 “at the 2300 block of Columbia Pike, Arlington, Virginia, conducting court-authorized law-enforcement activity. The FBI cannot comment further due to an ongoing investigation.”

Meek’s last article from ABC, according to his author page, is from April 14, about the trial of one of the “ISIS Beatles.” His last post on social media, responding to a tweet talking about U.S. monitoring of Russian troop tactics, was posted on Twitter at 4:59 a.m. on April 27. His neighbor and eyewitness to the raid said that he saw the unmarked police vehicles “just before dawn,” meaning his last post was just moments before the raid and his disappearance.

Due to a recently passed law that bars law enforcement from seizing the records of journalists, the raid would have had to have been approved by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, per the report. Observers believe that the raid on Meek may have been the first case of the Biden administration sending law enforcement against a journalist.

A spokesperson for ABC News told the outlet that Meek abruptly resigned from his post back in April with no explanation, despite having plenty of time left on his contract. Around the same time, he also canceled his other projects, including his book on the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, which he struck a deal for with Simon & Schuster.

Seemingly one of the only hints about Meek’s disappearance comes from the co-author of the Afghanistan withdrawal book, Lt. Col. Scott Mann.

“He contacted me in the spring, and was really distraught, and told me that he had some serious personal issues going on and that he needed to withdraw from the project,” Mann told Rolling Stone, relaying the last time he heard from Meek. “As a guy who’s a combat veteran who has seen that kind of strain — I don’t know what it was — I honored it. And he went on his way, and I continued on the project.”

James Gordon Meek on a Army Cover-up & Reveals Exclusive New Story Details for the First Time Ever

Glenn: ‘DISAPPEARED’ reporter is the year’s BIGGEST STORY

Lara Logan Banned from Newsmax for Arguing Good Defeats Evil, Satan Will Not Win, Globalists Want Us Eating Bugs While They Dine on Blood of Children (VIDEO)

By Jim Hoft October 22, 2022

Brilliant and lovely Lara Logan was on Newsmax TV this week discussing open borders and God’s plan for the earth. Lara is a woman of faith and she does not shy away from her beliefs.

Lara Logan was banned from Newsmax following this interview with Eric Bolling.

Lara Logan shared her belief that open borders are evil and destructive. This is not a controversial statement.

Lara Logan: “I am a firm and solid and immovable believer in God and I believe that God wins… The open border is Satan’s way of taking control of the world through all of these people who are his stooges and his servants. They may think they are going to become gods. That’s what they tell us, Yuval Harari and all of the rest of them at the World Economic Forum. You know, the ones who want us eating insects and cockroaches while they dine on the blood of children.”

TRENDING: EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: EcoHealth Whistleblower Dr. Andrew Huff: They Created the COVID-19 Virus Using Gain of Function in a Number of Laboratories and They Covered It Up (VIDEO)

Apparently, that statement was too much for Newsmax.

Lara Logan was banned from the channel after that interview. The mainstream media called it an unhinged Qanon rant.

Via The Storm Has Arrived and Ultra Pepe Lives Matter.

Ex-Newsmax Host Says Network Fired Him Because He Wouldn’t Attack Tucker Carlson

October 21, 2022

Former Newsmax host Grant Stinchfield revealed this week that the reason he was cut from the company’s primetime lineup this summer was because he refused to attack Fox News host Tucker Carlson, and blindly support Ukraine as required by company execs.

“Well, if you can believe it, they wanted me to go after Tucker Carlson to attack him,” Stinchfield said on the inaugural episode of his new podcast. “And I had a real hard time with this because to me, Tucker Carlson, I would say is number two to President Trump as the leader of the Republican Party.”

“Really, there’s not a politician, a Republican politician in America today that does not take a cue from Tucker Carlson over on Fox News. That’s just the reality of things,” Stinchfield said.

The former Newsmax personality continued, “Were there little things I could find to disagree with him on? Yeah. Conservatives don’t agree on everything, but by and large, I had always believed there is strength in numbers, and the fight that we are taking to the left, the fight to save America, especially now with President Trump gone, was far too important than to go after Tucker Carlson.”

“Him and I were fighting for the same thing,” Stinchfield said. “Yes, Fox News is our competitor. Yes, Fox News strayed from the conservative values that it was founded on. But Fox News wasn’t really the enemy. And honestly, Tucker Carlson isn’t the enemy either by far.”

rough language

“I don’t want to get hammered from the right. This wasn’t working. I told them it’s not working. So here’s what they did. They dispatched Dick Morris to come onto my program and attack Tucker Carlson,” Stinchfield noted, later adding, “He wanted to go after Tucker Carlson. He embraced that role. Fine. To me, it made my stomach churn. It made me literally sick to my stomach. Not a way you want to go to work every day. So there was the first thing that I was a thorn in the side of Newsmax leadership because I didn’t want to go down this role of attacking Tucker Carlson.”

Stinchfield also claimed that his quizzing of politicians on the show over where Ukrainian aid money would be allocated also ruffled the feathers of Newsmax brass, who informed him, “That is not the position of this network.”

According to Stinchfield, Newsmax then added liberal Greta Van Susteren  to the lineup and replaced his 8pm EST slot with former Fox employee Eric Bolling, who Stinchfield noted attacks Carlson “almost nightly.”

“I’m sure he’s making the Newsmax higher-ups very happy,” Stinchfield concluded.

This news and commentary by Gabriel Keane originally appeared on Valiant News.

Lee Smith Nails a Key Point, The Fourth Branch of Government and Media Operate Together

October 23, 2022 Sundance

Lee Smith makes an important point in this brief podcast excerpt. {Direct Rumble Link Here}  We have outlined his point on these pages for several years.

Essentially, the point Lee Smith drives home is how the U.S. Corporate Media, and the Big Tech monopolies, are the front force of the new national security and intelligence state.  It is a relationship that extends far beyond the customary leanings of media, and now covers a full synergistic relationship.  WATCH:

“We’re all familiar with the fact that the press has historically leaned to the left. That’s not what we’re looking at now. We’re looking at something very, very different. We’re looking at the press as being a part of the intelligence community. They are the ones who is putting these operations out there.”


The New York Times and Politico are the public relations firms for Main Justice, the DOJ and FBI.  The Washington Post handles the needs of the Intelligence Community (IC) and the Central Intelligence Agency.  Meanwhile CNN is managed by the needs of the U.S. State Dept.   These direct relationships have been discussed here for several years.

“We’re Looking at Something Very Different – The Press Being Part of the Intelligence Community” – Lee Smith Describes the Latest Role of the Fake News (VIDEO)

By Jim Hoft October 23, 2022

Author and investigative journalist Lee Smith explained the dangerous development inside our national media.

According to Lee Smith, and what appears to be quite evident, the American mainstream media is now part of the intelligence community. This was proven time and time again during the Trump years.

The purpose of today’s mainstream press is not to inform, but to move the masses in the direction designated by the intelligence community.

There are several examples of this:

TRENDING: BIDEN ECONOMY: US Has Only 25 Days of Diesel Supply – Shortage Could Cripple Economy

** The Trump-Russia dossier
** The Trump peepee tapes
** The Alfa Bank lies
** Hunter Biden’s laptop of family crimes
** Joe Biden’s sniffing and rubbing
** Joe Biden’s clear dementia
** Elections are secure
** Vaccines are safe
** Vaccines stop the spread
** The COVID-19 virus was from a wet market
** Trump organized an insurrection

In each of these instances, the intel community along with Democrat leaders led the mainstream media to lie to the American public either by planting false information or by ignoring stories that harmed their cause.

Lee Smith: The important point and I emphasize this every time I speak to people about this issue is this. It’s not that the press is lazy. It’s not that the press is ignorant. The press is the outward face of the national security apparatus right now. This didn’t always use to be the case. We’re all familiar with the fact that the press has historically leaned to the left. That’s not what we’re looking at now. We’re looking at something very, very different. We’re looking at the press being a part of the intelligence community.

They’re the ones who are putting these operations out there. Whether we’re looking at the media’s effort to hide Hunter Biden’s laptop. Remember what happened here? We had the 50 plus intelligence officials saying, “Oh, that’s Russian disinformation.” That’s pushed into places like The New York Times and CNN. And how all of these outfits including social media are preventing this real news from getting out there. When the New York Post published it, they blocked it. They threw the New York Post’s account off of Twitter. So again as we move forward this is the fundamental thing to understand.

This is also why the intelligence community uses many of the same far-left reporters to spread their lies, time after time.

Pelosi Abuses Trump’s Civil Rights, Covid VAX Secrets Revealed, Election Fraud Report Line

Focus group drops truth bombs about January 6th on MSNBC 🔥

“It looked a lot like Antifa to me.”
“It looked the same as the Black Lives Matter riots.”
“Antifa infiltrated.”
“Our administration is using it as their Reichstag fire.”
“I’m pretty sure I saw Democratic operatives instigating people to cross barriers.”

Sound of Silenced Science


Supreme Court Unanimously Rules City of Boston Violated First Amendment in Refusing to fly Christian Flag

By Cristina Laila May 2, 2022

The US Supreme Court on Monday unanimously ruled the city of Boston violated the First Amendment when they refused to fly a Christian flag.

The city of Boston has allowed organizations to use a third flag pole in front of City Hall for commemorative events.

In 12 years Boston approved 284 flags – they never denied a flag raising event until a group called Camp Constitution requested to raise a Christian flag on the third flag pole.

The only flag Boston ever denied was a Christian flag.

Of course.

“When the government encourages diverse expression — say, by creating a forum for debate — the First Amendment prevents it from discriminating against speakers based on their viewpoint,” left-wing Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the decision, according to NBC News.

“The city’s lack of meaning­ful involvement in the selection of flags or the crafting of their messages leads us to classify the flag raisings as pri­vate, not government, speech — though nothing prevents Boston from changing its policies going forward,” Breyer added.

NBC News reported:

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday that the city of Boston violated the Constitution when it refused to let a local organization fly a Christian flag in front of city hall.

While the case had religious overtones, the decision was fundamentally about free speech rights. The court said the city created a public forum, open to all comers, when it allowed organizations to use a flagpole in front of City Hall for commemorative events. Denying the same treatment for the Christian flag was a violation of free expression, it said.

The ruling was a victory for a group called Camp Constitution, which says part of its mission is “to enhance understanding of the country’s Judeo-Christian heritage.” The group wanted to raise a flag bearing a Latin cross during a one-hour event that would include speeches about Boston’s history from local clergy.

Its founder, Harold Shurtleff, applied to use one of three flagpoles in front of city hall. Two of them are for the flags of the United States and the State of Massachusetts. The city makes the third available to private organizations that conduct commemorations in the plaza in front of the building to celebrate the community’s diversity.

He sued after the city turned him down. Boston said the choice of flags on the third pole was an expression of the city’s views. Flying the Christian flag would amount to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion, the city said.

Shocker: Strongly divided Supremes rule UNANIMOUSLY on one issue

‘We must not give government the power to censor disfavored viewpoints in a public forum’

By Bob Unruh May 2, 2022

Boston, Massachusetts (Image by David Mark from Pixabay)

Boston, Massachusetts (Image by David Mark from Pixabay)

In a public rebuke to the city of Boston, the U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously ruled the city violated the constitutional rights of Camp Constitution, whose officials asked to fly a Christian flag at city hall through a program that already had allowed multiple private interest groups to fly their banners.

“We conclude that, on balance, Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups’ flags a form of government speech,” wrote Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the court’s leftists, in the opinion. “That means, in turn, that Boston’s refusal to let Shurtleff and Camp Constitution raise their flag based on its religious viewpoint ‘abridged’ their ‘freedom of speech.'”

The case had been developing for years, and earlier this year WND reported when the justices heard arguments in the case, which focused on the city’s decision to make available to any private group one of the flagpoles at its city hall. The groups could schedule a time and then fly their banner for a short time.

That program was run without incident until Hal Shurtleff, whose organization is called Camp Constitution, requested to fly a Christian flag under the city’s program. Never before had city officials debated such a request, but this time, they refused to allow the banner to fly.

TRENDING: Journalist finds ‘rifle and ammunition’ at Walmart, picture shows it’s just a Red Ryder BB gun

At that time arguments were heard, Elena Kagan, another of the court’s leftists, openly wondered, “Why is it that people have not been able to correct this mistake?”

At that time, analysts concluded that the full bench of the court appeared to be united “in favor of Harold Shurtleff.”

A report noted Boston officials had approved “284 straight applications,” of flags involving other nations, and multiple special interests, including references to other religions.

Those included the flags of the Pride flag and communist regimes such as China and Cuba.

Washington Examiner noted that Mat Staver, of Liberty Counsel, argued at the time for Camp Constitution that, “We must not give government the power to censor disfavored viewpoints in a public forum.”

The city, in fact, threatened previously that it would change its program to continue to exclude the Christian flag if the court ruled against its censorship.

Breyer withheld no criticism of the actual city hall in Boston, which he called “a raw concrete structure, an example of the brutalist style,” and pointed out that in one description it was named the “World’s Ugliest Building.”

Yet it is part of a plaza that includes three 93-foot flagpoles that is a public forum.

“Boston flies the American flag from the first pole (along with a banner honoring prisoners of war and soldiers missing in action). From the second, it flies the flag of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And from the third, it usually (but not always) flies Boston’s flag – a sketch of the ‘City on a Hill’ encircled by a ring against a blue backdrop.”

But the city also makes that flagpole “available to the public.”

And Breyer noted the city itself admitted the plaza is a “public forum.”

Lower courts mistakenly had ruled that flying a Christian flag where dozens of other private interests had flown their flags with their own private messages would somehow make the Christian flag – and not the others – “government speech,” which would allow the city to censor it.

The opinion said the Constitution allows a government to pick and choose its own messages but here, the government invited the people to participate.

The result is that dozens of times a year “Boston allowed private groups to raise their own flags.”

“These other flags were raised in connection with ceremonies at the flagpoles’ base and remained aloft during the events,” the opinion explained, so that observers would not necessarily associate a flag’s message with Boston.

The city also told the public it wanted “to accommodate all applicants,” and it apparently did so until the Christian flag was requested.

“All told, while the historical practice of flag flying at government buildings favors Boston, the city’s lack of meaningful involvement in the selection of flags or the crafting of their messages leads us to classify the flag raisings as private, not government, speech,” he wrote.

His opinion did include a warning, that “nothing prevents Boston from changing its policies going forward.”

But he also pointedly explained, “When a government does not speak for itself, it may not exclude speech based on ‘religious viewpoint’; doing so ‘constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination.'”

Among multiple concurring opinions, Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained, “This dispute arose only because of a government official’s mistaken understanding of the Establishment Clause. A Boston official believed that the city would violate the Establishment Clause if it allowed a religious flag to briefly fly outside of city hall as part of the flag-raising program that the city had opened to the public.”

He said there’s no violation when a government “treats religious persons, organizations, and speech equally with secular persons, organizations, and speech in public programs.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch pointed out that the decision was unanimous, and explained the city got it “so wrong” because the city chose to follow a now-abandoned Supreme Court precedent, in Lemon, which previously set a standard for government speech.

“Boston sought to drag Lemon once more from its grace. It was a strategy as risky as it was unsound. Lemon ignored the original meaning of the Establishment Clause, it disregarded mountains of precedent, and it substituted a serious constitutional inquiry with a guessing game. This court long ago interred Lemon, and it is past time for local officials and lower courts to let it lie.”

Liberty Counsel argued on behalf of Shurtleff that the flagpole became a public forum, and the Christian flag no longer could be censored, when the city opened up the facility to “all applicants.”

The organization confirmed the city denied the request “solely because of the word ‘Christian’ on the application.”

Boston’s antipathy toward the Christian flag is not the first time a lower government has been called out recently by the high court for an anti-religious agenda. Just a few years back, the court publicly scolded Colorado for its “hostility” to Christianity in its attempt to force a Christian baker to violate his faith and promote same-sex weddings.

In that case, involving Masterpiece Cakeshop and baker Jack Phillips, the state even had attempted to force him into a reindoctrination training program because he declined to promoted same-sex weddings with his artistry.

Boston Violated First Amendment by Prohibiting Christian Flag, Rules Unanimous Supreme Court

May 02, 2022


Shurtleff v. Boston:

Supreme Court Opinion

The Institute’s amicus brief

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has concluded that the City of Boston violated the First Amendment when it refused to fly a Christian flag on a city flagpole while allowing other flags. “Through history, the suppression of unpopular religious speech and exercise has been among the favorite tools of petty tyrants,” noted Justice Neil Gorsuch in his concurring opinion. “The day governments in this country forage for ways to abandon these foundational promises [of the free exercise of religion] is a dark day for the cause of individual freedom.” Weighing in before the U.S. Supreme Court in Harold Shurtleff v. City of Boston, Rutherford Institute attorneys had sounded the alarm over attempts by Boston officials to use the “government speech doctrine” to censor or discriminate against expressive activities by Christians that take place in public which may be perceived as unpopular or politically incorrect.

Mark D. Taticchi, D. Alicia Hickok, Renee M. Dudek, Elizabeth M. Casey, and Nicholas J. Nelson of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP helped to advance the arguments in the amicus brief.

“This is exactly the slippery slope that we have been warning about for years when it comes to the so-called ‘government speech doctrine’ which empowers the government to censor private speech whenever it occurs in a public or government forum,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “What started out years ago as attempts to use the ‘government speech doctrine’ to censor license plates that were perceived as politically incorrect has snowballed into broad efforts to whitewash and restrict any First Amendment-protected expression, including speech that is political or religious in nature, that occurs in public places.”

For twelve years, the City of Boston had allowed groups to temporarily fly a flag on one of its three flagpoles in front of City Hall. The City’s website stated that it wanted to create an environment where everyone feels included and to foster diversity and build connections among Boston’s many communities. The application form noted that the City sought to accommodate all applicants seeking to take advantage of its public forums. For that purpose, the City had approved 284 flag-raising events and had never denied any group’s application to fly its flag until 2017 when Camp Constitution applied to fly a Christian flag as part of an event featuring speeches by local clergy on Boston’s history as part of an effort to enhance understanding of the country’s Judeo-Christian moral heritage. Although the City had previously allowed groups to fly flags of other countries and flags celebrating causes such as gay pride, the City denied Camp Constitution’s flag-raising request. Camp Constitution’s second request, to raise a Christian flag for an event to celebrate the contributions which Boston’s Christian community has made to the City’s cultural diversity, was also not granted. Although both the district court and the appellate court ruled in favor of Boston, affirming its decision not to allow Camp Constitution to fly a Christian flag, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Boston’s actions, prohibiting the Christian flag while allowing other flags, were unconstitutional.

The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.

Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop – ‘The First Amendment Is Not a Threat to Democracy, It’s What Preserves Democracy’

Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop

April 17, 2022 by Sundance

The metaphorical Jack had a great idea, open a coffee shop where the beverages were free and use internal advertising as the income subsidy to operate the business.  Crowds came for the free coffee, comfy couches, fellowship, conversation and enjoyment.

It didn’t matter where Jack got the coffee, how he paid for it, or didn’t, or what product advertising the customers would be exposed to while there.  Few people thought about such things.  Curiously, it didn’t matter what size the crowd was; in the backroom of Jack’s Coffee Shop they were able to generate massive amounts of never-ending free coffee at extreme scales.

Over time, using the justification of parking lot capacity and township regulations, not everyone would be able to park and enter.  Guards were placed at the entrance to pre-screen customers. A debate began.

Alternative coffee shops opened around town.  It was entirely possible to duplicate Jacks Coffee Shop, yet no one could duplicate the business model for the free coffee.  Indeed, there was something very unique about Jack’s Coffee Shop.  Thus, some underlying suspicions were raised:

The only way Twitter, with 217 million users, could exist as a viable platform is if they had access to tech systems of incredible scale and performance, and those systems were essentially free or very cheap.  The only entity that could possibly provide that level of capacity and scale is the United States Government – combined with a bottomless bank account.  A public-private partnership.

If my hunch is correct, Elon Musk is poised to expose the well-kept secret that most social media platforms are operating on U.S. government tech infrastructure and indirect subsidy.  Let that sink in.

The U.S. technology system, the assembled massive system of connected databases and server networks, is the operating infrastructure that offsets the cost of Twitter to run their own servers and database.  The backbone of Twitter is the United States government.


♦ June 2013: […] “Cloud computing is one of the core components of the strategy to help the IC discover, access and share critical information in an era of seemingly infinite data.” … “A test scenario described by GAO in its June 2013 bid protest opinion suggests the CIA sought to compare how the solutions presented by IBM and Amazon Web Services (AWS) could crunch massive data sets, commonly referred to as big data.” … “Solutions had to provide a “hosting environment for applications which process vast amounts of information in parallel on large clusters (thousands of nodes) of commodity hardware” using a platform called MapReduce. Through MapReduce, clusters were provisioned for computation and segmentation. Test runs assumed clusters were large enough to process 100 terabytes of raw input data. AWS’ solution received superior marks from CIA procurement officials”… (MORE)

♦ November 2013: […] “Twitter closed its first day of trading on Nov. 7, 2013, at $44.90 a share. In the years since then, it briefly traded above $70, but more recently, it has struggled.”

Jack’s free coffee shop has been for sale, but there’s no viable business model in the private sector.  No one has wanted to purchase Twitter – it is simply unsustainable; the data processing costs exceed the capacity of the platform to generate revenue – until now….

And suddenly, the people who work in the backroom of Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop don’t want Jack to sell.

Twitter is not making a decision to decline the generous offer by Elon Musk because of stewardship or fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.  The financials of Twitter as a non-viable business model highlight the issue of money being irrelevant.  Twitter does not and cannot make money.  Growing Twitter only means growing an expense. Growing Twitter does not grow revenue enough to offset the increase in expense.

There is only one way for Twitter to exist as a viable entity, people are now starting to realize this.

What matters to the people behind Twitter, the people who are subsidizing the ability of Twitter to exist, is control over the global conversation.

Control of the conversation is priceless to the people who provide the backbone for Twitter.

Once people realize who is subsidizing Twitter, everything changes.

That’s the fight. (more)

♦ 2021, Public-Private Partnership – The modern Fourth Branch of Government is only possible because of a Public-Private partnership with the intelligence apparatus. You do not have to take my word for it, the partnership is so brazen they have made public admissions.

The biggest names in Big Tech announced in June their partnership with the Five Eyes intelligence network, ultimately controlled by the NSA, to: (1) monitor all activity in their platforms; (2) identify extremist content; (3) look for expressions of Domestic Violent Extremism (DVE); and then, (4) put the content details into a database where the Five Eyes intelligence agencies (U.K., U.S., Australia, Canada, New Zealand) can access it.

Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft are all partnering with the intelligence apparatus. It might be difficult to fathom how openly they admit this, but they do. Look at this sentence in the press release (emphasis mine):

[…] “The Group will use lists from intelligence-sharing group Five Eyes adding URLs and PDFs from more groups, including the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters and neo-Nazis.”

Think about that sentence structure very carefully. They are “adding to” the preexisting list…. admitting the group (aka Big Tech) already have access to the the intelligence-sharing database… and also admitting there is a preexisting list created by the Five Eyes consortium.

Obviously, who and what is defined as “extremist content” will be determined by the Big Tech insiders themselves. This provides a gateway, another plausible deniability aspect, to cover the Intelligence Branch from any oversight.

When the Intelligence Branch within government wants to conduct surveillance and monitor American citizens, they run up against problems due to the Constitution of the United States. They get around those legal limitations by sub-contracting the intelligence gathering, the actual data-mining, and allowing outside parties (contractors) to have access to the central database.

The government cannot conduct electronic searches (4th amendment issue) without a warrant; however, private individuals can search and report back as long as they have access. What is being admitted is exactly that preexisting partnership. The difference is that Big Tech will flag the content from within their platforms, and now a secondary database filled with the extracted information will be provided openly for the Intelligence Branch to exploit.

The volume of metadata captured by the NSA has always been a problem because of the filters needed to make the targeting useful. There is a lot of noise in collecting all data that makes the parts you really want to identify more difficult to capture. This new admission puts a new massive filtration system in the metadata that circumvents any privacy protections for individuals.

Previously, the Intelligence Branch worked around the constitutional and unlawful search issue by using resources that were not in the United States. A domestic U.S. agency, working on behalf of the U.S. government, cannot listen on your calls without a warrant. However, if the U.S. agency sub-contracts to say a Canadian group, or foreign ally, the privacy invasion is no longer legally restricted by U.S. law.

What was announced in June 2021 is an alarming admission of a prior relationship along with open intent to define their domestic political opposition as extremists.

July 26, 2021, (Reuters) – A counterterrorism organization formed by some of the biggest U.S. tech companies including Facebook (FB.O) and Microsoft (MSFT.O) is significantly expanding the types of extremist content shared between firms in a key database, aiming to crack down on material from white supremacists and far-right militias, the group told Reuters.

Until now, the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism’s (GIFCT) database has focused on videos and images from terrorist groups on a United Nations list and so has largely consisted of content from Islamist extremist organizations such as Islamic State, al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Over the next few months, the group will add attacker manifestos – often shared by sympathizers after white supremacist violence – and other publications and links flagged by U.N. initiative Tech Against Terrorism. It will use lists from intelligence-sharing group Five Eyes, adding URLs and PDFs from more groups, including the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters and neo-Nazis.

The firms, which include Twitter (TWTR.N) and Alphabet Inc’s (GOOGL.O) YouTube, share “hashes,” unique numerical representations of original pieces of content that have been removed from their services. Other platforms use these to identify the same content on their own sites in order to review or remove it. (read more)

The influence of the Intelligence Branch now reaches into our lives, our personal lives. In the decades before 9/11/01 the intelligence apparatus intersected with government, influenced government, and undoubtedly controlled many institutions with it. The legislative oversight function was weak and growing weaker, but it still existed and could have been used to keep the IC in check. However, after the events of 9/11/01, the short-sighted legislative reactions opened the door to allow the surveillance state to weaponize.

After the Patriot Act was triggered, not coincidentally only six weeks after 9/11, a slow and dangerous fuse was lit that ends with the intelligence apparatus being granted a massive amount of power. The problem with assembled power is always what happens when a Machiavellian network takes control over that power and begins the process to weaponize the tools for their own malicious benefit. That is exactly what the installation of Barack Obama was all about.

The Obama network took pre-assembled intelligence weapons we should never have allowed to be created, and turned those weapons into tools for his radical and fundamental change. The target was the essential fabric of our nation. Ultimately, this corrupt political process gave power to create the Fourth Branch of Government, the Intelligence Branch. From that perspective the fundamental change was successful.

It’s all Connected FolksSEE HERE

[…] “The vision was first outlined in the Intelligence Community Information Technology Enterprise plan championed by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and IC Chief Information Officer Al Tarasiuk almost three years ago.” … “It is difficult to underestimate the cloud contract’s importance. In a recent public appearance, CIA Chief Information Officer Douglas Wolfe called it “one of the most important technology procurements in recent history,” with ramifications far outside the realm of technology.” (READ MORE)

One job…. “take the preexisting system and retool it so the weapons of government only targeted one side of the political continuum.”

Rep. Jordan: ‘The First Amendment Is Not a Threat to Democracy, It’s What Preserves Democracy’

By Susan Jones | April 15, 2022



Tesla CEO Elon Musk has launched a hostile takeover bid for Twitter for the sake of free speech and "civilization" itself, he said. (Photo by PATRICK PLEUL/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has launched a hostile takeover bid for Twitter for the sake of free speech and “civilization” itself, he said. (Photo by PATRICK PLEUL/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

( – The possibility that Twitter might become a true free-speech zone sent panic through liberal enclaves on Thursday, after billionaire Elon Musk offered to buy the company for $54.20 a share.

“I think it’s very important for there to be an inclusive arena for free speech,” Musk said, insisting that his cash offer was his best and last offer.

Many conservatives are rooting for Musk, including Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) who told Fox News’s Sean Hannity, “The first amendment is not a threat to democracy, it’s what preserves democracy.” Jordan said he hopes Musk’s takeover bid will succeed, but he also doubts it will:

“I mean, understand the left’s position today,” Jordan said on Thursday night:

“The left’s position is, if you don’t agree with me, you’re not allowed to speak, and if you try, we are going to call you racist and we’re going to try to cancel you.

“So I don’t think they’ll let this go forward, because if they do, then they can’t suppress the Hunter Biden story; then they can’t kick President Trump off of Twitter; then they can’t throttle back Republicans who are trying to fund-raise on these big tech platforms, who are trying to get out their message.

“They can’t do all the things that they want to do and they’ve been doing, so I don’t think they’ll let it go forward. I hope they do. I hope it’s a victory for free speech.”

Jordan said the leftists are so committed to censorship and undermining the Constitution that they won’t stand for anything that gets in their way.

Even Musk has expressed doubt about whether his offer will be accepted.

Saudi Prince Al Waleed bin Talal Al Saud, one of Twitter’s largest shareholders, rejected Musk’s bid, tweeting: “I don’t believe that the proposed offer by @elonmusk ($54.20) comes close to the intrinsic value of @Twitter given its growth prospects. Being one of the largest & long-term shareholders of Twitter, @Kingdom_KHC & I reject this offer.”

Musk replied to the Saudi prince, tweeting: “Interesting. Just two questions, if I may. How much of Twitter does the Kingdom own, directly & indirectly? What are the Kingdom’s views on journalistic freedom of speech?”

As Musk indicated, freedom of speech does not flourish in the kingdom.

Hannity asked Jordan what Congress might be able to do about censorship if the Saudi prince is able to block the Twitter sale:

“Look, we’ve got to take away their liability protection at a minimum. We’ve got to pass that. I don’t think Joe Biden will sign it,” Jordan said.

“We’ve got to look at speeding up any type of antitrust action in the court system. We’ve got to have more transparency when they do censor you, throttle you back, we need to know that when it’s happening.

“And we may need, frankly, look at a private cause of action if they’re going to take people down and do things like they did to President Trump and others, so all that needs to happen…The First Amendment is not a threat to democracy, it’s what preserves democracy, and they are directly going at it.”

Jordan noted that for Twitter shareholders, “politics” may be more important than making money. “I think that’s a big issue here as well, so let’s see how this plays out. And I hope it’s successful, because we need all the forums we can have that are devoted to the public square being a place where the First Amendment is protected.”


Free Speech: Social Media Freedom Foundation Sues Government Under 5th Amendment, May Impact Tech Giant’s Section 230 Benefits

By Jim Hoft April 1, 2022

Guest post by Facebook whistleblower Ryan Hartwif

We live in perilous times for freedom of speech, and we’re beginning to see the unchecked power of technology companies as they flex their muscle throughout the Ukraine conflict. Oddly, Facebook has decided to allow praise of a neo-nazi group in Ukraine, a local militia called the Azov Battalion. As Sam Biddle from The Intercept writes, “What happens when a group you’ve deemed too dangerous to freely discuss is defending its country against a full-scale assault?”

This issue of militias being put on Facebook’s Dangerous Organizations list also affects us in the United States, since we know hundreds of state militias in the United States have also been put on this list. So not only is Facebook involved in foreign policy, they are heavily involved in regulating state-based militia organizations. I discuss Facebook’s policy on nationalism and militia groups in chapter 7 of my book, titled Behind The Mask of Facebook: A Whistleblower’s Shocking Story of Big Tech Bias and Censorship.

Despite pushback against Facebook and tech titans, citizens and even foreign governments are powerless against tech companies’ wave of propaganda and influence in elections.

TRENDING: “Bill Barr Broke the Law… The Fix Is In… Bill Barr Did Not Do His Job” – EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Tony Shaffer on Barr’s Actions After the 2020 Election

I’ve done my best to bring to light some of Facebook’s corruption, but little did I imagine myself four years ago being so involved in lawsuits and criminal referrals against Big Tech. I started as a content moderator for Facebook in March of 2018, and went public in 2020 with Project Veritas, after filming with a hidden camera for 9 months and exposing Facebook’s bias against conservatives and influence in the 2020 election.

Since then, I have contributed to a criminal referral to the DOJ for Mark Zuckerberg, helped organize a lawsuit against Youtube, spearheaded by Google whistleblower Zach Vorhies, and I’m currently working with the Social Media Freedom Foundation and their constitutional challenge against section 230.

The Social Media Freedom Foundation, a 501c3 founded by Jason Fyk, has a unique legal approach to section 230. Since Fyk’s personal case against Facebook went to the Supreme Court, he has standing to sue the government, which he is doing under the 5th amendment, for depriving him of liberty and property. Fyk’s original case against Facebook, explained succinctly in this March 2022 interview with NTD News, is that Facebook sold his page to another entity because they were paying more in advertising than Fyk. Jason Fyk’s initial lawsuit against Facebook from 2018 can be found here. The new constitutional challenge against section 230 argues the following:

The Social Media Freedom Foundation (“SMFF”)  non-profit charity organization (in conjunction with Fyk), challenges the constitutionality of the CDA’s delegation of regulatory authority that permits the discretionary restrictive actions of a commercial private entity. This discretionary enforcement resulted in the advancement of anti-competitive animus against Fyk (and many other users like Fyk), an animus that cannot, by definition, meet the qualification of “Good Samaritan” to enjoy the entitlement of complete immunity for any and all liability for any malfeasance or tortious conduct. Regulation, penalization, or deprivation in any form, carried out by an authorized government agent (i.e., whether private or public) “to fill up the details” (i.e., fill in the quasi-legislative rules) at the directive of Congress, must afford due process and free speech of the entity or person being regulated. The SMFF and Fyk lodges this facial and as-applied constitutional challenge of Section 230, with the law being glaringly violative of the constitutional doctrines and/or statutory canons cited above.

Ryan Hartwig is an officer of the Social Media Freedom Foundation


Appeals court stunner! Guidance from heaven allowed in jury room

Reverses decision that removed juror for seeking, getting spiritual advice

By Bob Unruh

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stunningly has affirmed that a juror is allowed to seek spiritual counsel through prayer, and get it, while deliberating a criminal case.

The 7-4 result means that former U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown, who had been indicted on and convicted of fraud charges, will get a new trial.

It was during deliberations by the jury that one juror complained to the judge about another juror who had expressed that he had prayed for guidance in the case, and had believed he had been given that guidance.

As former solicitor general Paul Clement wrote in the brief, on appeal, for Brown: “A nation that enshrines religious toleration in its founding document and invokes the religious beliefs of its citizenry to reinforce their public oaths cannot dismiss jurors based on the way they express their religious convictions.”

“We are grateful that the court reaffirmed the strong standard required to dismiss a deliberating juror,” said Lea Patterson, counsel for First Liberty. “No American should be disqualified from fulfilling their civic duty as jurors simply because they believe that God answers prayer.”

The situation developed in 2016, when a federal grand jury indicted Brown. It went to trial in 2017.

According to First Liberty, “During the jury’s deliberations, the district court removed a juror who stated to other jurors that he had prayed for and believed he received the guidance of the Holy Spirit in considering the case. The judge questioned the juror, who confirmed that he had no ‘political, religious, or moral beliefs that would preclude [him] from serving as a fair and impartial juror’ and that he was not ‘having any difficulties with any religious or moral beliefs that are, at this point, bearing on or interfering with [his] ability to decide the case on the facts presented and on the law as [the court] gave it to [him] in the instructions.'”

The judge, Timothy Corrigan, ordered the juror removed from the case, and the 11th Circuit’s decision now has reversed that ruling.

“Corrine Brown was entitled to the unanimous verdict of a jury of ordinary citizens. The removal of Juror No. 13 – a juror who listened for God’s guidance as he sat in judgment of Brown and deliberated over the evidence against her – deprived her of one,” the ruling said.

Chief Judge William Pryor, writing for the full 11th Circuit, said, “Jurors may pray for and believe they have received divine guidance as they determine another person’s innocence or guilt, a profound civic duty but a daunting task to say the least.”

While the juror had expressed that he’d been given insight that Brown was innocent, when he was removed the jury convicted Brown on 18 counts and she was sentenced to five years in prison. A panel of the court earlier rejected her appeal 2-1.

Lea Patterson, legal counsel for the non-profit First Liberty, said those judges earlier had set a harmful standard.

“Dismissing a deliberating juror for believing prayer is effective denies the noble and civic duty to serve as a juror to hundreds of millions of Americans who seek divine guidance through prayer,” Patterson said. “How is it possible that we demand a juror take an oath invoking God’s aid in rendering a verdict but then dismiss that same juror for taking that oath seriously? If this decision stands millions of Americans are disqualified from fulfilling their civic duty as jurors simply because they believe that God answers prayer.”

The court’s majority opinion said the juror’s “vivid and direct religious language, read in the light of his other statements – suggests he was doing nothing more than praying for and receiving divine guidance as he evaluated the evidence or, in secular terms, provided an explanation of his internal mental processes – all consistent with proper jury service.

“Undoubtedly, even many devout believers would stumble over the words ‘the Holy Spirit told me … ‘ or ‘I received information from my Father in Heaven.’ Many people of faith are unused to hearing such expressions. But Juror No. 13’s idiom was no in itself proof of misconduct,” the opinion said.

The opinion continued, “It is hard to imagine what kind of evidence could prove more convincingly that a religious juror should not be dismissed. After all, the original and traditional purpose of the juror’s oath, like that of all official oaths, is ‘to superadd a religious sanction to what would otherwise be his official duty, and to bind his conscience’ against misuse of his office.”

It continued, “For all we know, Juror No. 13’s view that Brown was ‘not guilty on all charges’ was not even entrenched. The record does not support the district judge’s prediction that Juror No. 13 necessarily ‘would have continued in the same mindset.'”

In fact, the juror repeatedly instructed the judge that he was able to follow the evidence, deliberate that evidence with other jurors, and seek the truth in the case.

The opinion noted, “Juror No. 13’s expression that God had communicated with him may be construed as his description of an internal mental event, not an impermissible external instruction. … Juror No. 13’s vernacular that the Holy Spirit ‘told’ him Brown was ‘not guilty on all charges’ was no more disqualifying by itself than a secular juror’s statement that his conscience or gut ‘told’ him the same. Of course, neither a religious nor secular juror may convict or acquit a defendant using his internal decision-making processes without regard to the evidence. But Juror No. 13 repeatedly explained that he was, in fact, reviewing and deliberating over the evidence.”

A separate concurrence with the majority, in fact, faulted the judge himself for interfering. “While a jury is actively deliberating, it is never appropriate for a judge to ‘inquir[e] into [a] juror’s thoughts.’ Let the deliberations play out, let one juror convince another that he is wrong, and let the jury return a verdict.”

Supreme Court says California rule requiring nonprofits to reveal donor names is unconstitutional

Supreme Court ruling is a victory for conservative nonprofits – Smacks Down Kamala Harris and CA AG for Violating First Amendment


The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on Thursday sided with the Americans For Prosperity Foundation (AFP) against Acting California Attorney General Matthew Rodriguez in favor of keeping non-profit donor records private, smacking down a measure pushed by Vice President Kamala Harris that conservatives feared could be used to target them.

“The government may regulate in the First Amendment area only with narrow specificity, and compelled disclosure regimes are no exception,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority in a 6-3 decision. “When it comes to a person’s beliefs and associations, broad and sweeping state inquiries into these protected areas discourage citizens from exercising rights protected by the Constitution.”

The Court held that California’s disclosure requirement is invalid because it burdens donors’ First Amendment rights and is not narrowly tailored to an important government interest.

While Vice President Kamala Harris was still Attorney General of California, she sent a letter to AFP in 2013 asking the non-profit to send Schedule B forms to disclose its largest donors. A Schedule B is a highly confidential form that lists the names and addresses of a charity’s major donors—including those who live outside of California, according to the Cato Institute.

AFP declined to send the forms, saying doing so would dissuade people from donating and would violate the First Amendment.

Xavier Becerra took over as Attorney General for Harris, but was soon succeeded by Matthew Rodriguez when he became United States Secretary of Health and Human Services. In the case, Rodriguez alleged that the Attorney General’s Office began asking for Schedule B forms in 2010— in the same way the Internal Revenue Service does  — to fight charitable fraud and self-dealing.

They further claimed they were not asking for Schedule B forms as a way to target people or publicly out individuals for supporting causes, according to court documents.

AFP, which is a conservative organization, cited an incident in which California released 1,800 Schedule B forms to the public, despite the state’s confidentiality law.

AFP further argued the Attorney General’s Office had only used Schedule B forms five times for investigations. Instead, AFP said the AG should behave the way 47 other states do and subpoena non-profits for records during an investigation, according to court briefings.

A trial-court ruled in favor of AFP before the decision was reversed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, saying in part:

California has not considered alternatives to indiscriminate up-front disclosure. That is true in every case. And the State’s interest in amassing sensitive information for its own convenience is weak. That is true in every case. When it comes to the freedom of association, the protections of the First Amendment are triggered not only by actual restrictions on an individual’s ability to join with others to further shared goals. The risk of a chilling effect on association is enough, because First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive. [emphasis added]

In his opinion, Roberts emphasized the First Amendment’s role in protecting freedom of association and how the concept applies to AFP.

Protected association furthers a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends and is especially important in preserving political and cultural diversity and in shielding dissident expression from suppression by the majority,” Roberts wrote. [emphasis added]

He noted that compelled disclosure of affiliation could act as a restraint on freedom of association as effectively other forms of government action.

Roberts further said he does not doubt California has an important interest in preventing wrongdoing by charitable organizations. He concluded however, that there is a “dramatic mismatch” between the interests of the Attorney General’s Office and the disclosure process they use to investigate those crimes.

In reality, then, California’s interest is less in investigating fraud and more in ease of administration. This interest, however, cannot justify the disclosure requirement. The Attorney General may well prefer to have every charity’s information close at hand, just in case. But the prime objective of the First Amendment is not efficiency. Mere administrative convenience does not remotely reflect the seriousness of the actual burden that the demand for Schedule Bs imposes on donors’ association rights. [emphasis added]

Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Barrett joined Roberts in full, and Justice Alito and Justice Gorsuch joined in part. Alito and Justice Thomas filed concurring opinions. Justice Sotomayer wrote a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan.

The case is Americans For Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, No. 19-251 in the Supreme Court of the United States.

VIDEO Virginia Parents Set Example for Standing Up to Leftist School Board Bullies – Court Rules in Virginia Teacher’s Favor, Okay to Express Religious Opposition to Transgender Policy

By Tony Perkins | June 10, 2021

A parent in Loudoun County, Va., speaks up in support of free speech. (Photo credit: YouTube/The Blue Oak Project)

A parent in Loudoun County, Va., speaks up in support of free speech. (Photo credit: YouTube/The Blue Oak Project)

One thing was for sure: they didn’t come to be quiet. The parents of Loudoun County, Va. who were packed into every available chair at Tuesday’s school board meeting were angry. For months, they’d been warring with the district over its woke curriculum in a feud so bitter that it made the national news. But it was the suspension of Tanner Cross, a P.E. teacher who spoke out about a new transgender policy, that turned the local temperature from hot to boiling.

For new superintendent Scott Ziegler, who watched the room slowly unravel, it was not what he had imagined for his first day. Ziegler had been on the job as the interim boss, but Tuesday’s fireworks were nothing like he’d experienced. One parent after another stormed to the microphone to object to either Cross’s treatment or the district’s string of radical policies. At one point, a dad slammed down a copy of the First Amendment, looked up to the dais, and bellowed, “I’m going to leave this here, and I hope you learn something.” For four hours, they took turns telling the board to stop “instilling progressive Left ideas [in] our children.” “It’s not appropriate,” one mother said, “to silence, bully, or dismiss our views as parents.”

Waving dozens of signs that read “You’re fired!” or “Stop Critical Race Theory!” they were the picture of the new conservative uprising. Right now, one dad insisted Loudoun County Public Schools “is ground zero for parents like me to protect our kids and take back our schools.” And if Tuesday night is any indication, they’ll do anything they can to make the district listen. If that means going door-to-door in 90 degree weather to recall school board members, they’ll do it. If it means filing lawsuits against the schools’ curriculum, they’ll do that too. If it means showing up at rallies for a Christian teacher who wants his students to know the truth, they’ll bring their friends.

It’s a snapshot of what’s happening in school districts all across America. Parents are awake, they’re engaged, and they’re lighting a fire under local communities to stand up and fight back. In Rapid City, South Dakota this week, local families were so frustrated by the indoctrination in their district that they organized a boots-on-the-ground campaign — a lot like the parents of Southlake, Tex. did — and managed to sweep all four open seats on the school board with conservatives. Like their counterparts in Loudoun, they refuse to take this radical takeover lying down. And when people speak out — like Tanner did — it gives others the courage to do the same.

Cross’s attorney at Alliance Defending Freedom said they talked to a lot of teachers at the school who agree with Tanner, but they’re scared to come forward. Thanks to Circuit Judge James E. Plowman Jr., they don’t have to be afraid anymore. In a reproachful ruling Tuesday, Plowman ordered Loudoun County to reinstate Cross, calling what the district did “an unnecessary and vindictive act.” It was an “unconstitutional” action, he wrote, and it has “silenced others from speaking publicly on the issue.”

The order to reinstate Tanner was cheered by the district’s biggest critics, who argued at Tuesday’s meeting that no teacher should ever be punished for advocating for the good of their students.

“What we need,” Tanner’s ADF attorney, Tyson Langhofer, argued on “Washington Watch,” is more teachers “engag[ing] in the political process.” Look, Tyson said, “the First Amendment hasn’t changed. The principles [of free speech and religious freedom] are still here — and if they’re willing to stand, we can win this battle. But we can’t win if they won’t stand. We can cancel Cancel Culture if people have the courage to stand. And I will encourage them to do what Tanner did, simply speak the truth and then the truth will set you free. You will prevail eventually.” And here’s the thing, he pointed out. “I’ve represented a lot of clients like Tanner, and none of them have ever told me that they regret taking the stand. That doesn’t mean that they didn’t pay some price. But what they gained out of it was far more valuable than anything that they lost.”

As for Tanner, he’s just excited to get back in the classroom before the summer ends. But he hopes his case gives many people in the district something to think about before next fall.

“I don’t want any teacher — or anyone who lives in this great country — to not be able to express how they feel about any policies in their workplace that might be harmful…I would encourage teachers to just express themselves freely.” Hopefully, he added, they won’t be punished. But if they are, we’ve learned one thing: the local community will have their back.

Tony Perkins is president of the Family Research Council.

Editor’s Note: This piece originally appeared on Family Research Council.

Court Rules in Virginia Teacher’s Favor, Okay to Express Religious Opposition to Transgender Policy

By Elisabeth Nieshalla | June 9, 2021

Physical education teacher Tanner Cross.  (Screenshot)

Physical education teacher Tanner Cross. (Screenshot)

(CNS News) — On Tuesday, the Circuit Court for the County of Loudoun, Va., ruled to reinstate Byron Tanner Cross to his teaching position after the Loudoun County Public Schools suspended him for voicing his concerns at a school board meeting that a transgender policy under consideration violated his beliefs and was harmful to children. 

Tanner is a physical education teacher at the Leesburg Elementary School in Loudoun County. He has been a teacher for 15 years.

“The Court finds that the Plaintiff’s speech and religious content are central to the determination made by the Defendants to suspend Plaintiff’s employment,” reads the decision, and Cross was granted a temporary injunction. 

While the case is still being litigated, Judge James E. Plowman Jr. directed the Loudoun County Public Schools to reinstate Tanner to his position and stop banning him from school property.

“I will not affirm that a biological boy can be a girl and vice versa because it is against my religion,” Cross stated on May 25 during the public comments portion of the meeting. “It’s lying to a child. It’s abuse to a child. And it’s sinning against our God.” 

Two days later, he was placed on administrative leave, with LCPS claiming he caused “significant disruption” at the school “including multiple complaints and parents requesting that Mr. Cross have no interaction with their children because of his comments,” according to a LCPS representative.(Getty Images) (Getty Images)

“This case is not about how schools should treat students who struggle with gender dysphoria,” the Alliance Defending Freedom, representing Cross, stated in the official complaint. “It is about whether public schools can punish a teacher for objecting, as a private citizen, to a proposed policy, in a forum designated for the purpose of considering whether to implement such policies, where the policy would force him to express ideas about human nature, unrelated to the school’s curriculum, that he believes are false.”

The hearing took place on June 4, where ADF attorney Logan Spena and Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer represented Cross. Afterwards, at a rally for Cross, Langhofer told CNS News that he believed the judge conducted a fair hearing, and he was hopeful for a ruling in their favor. 

The ADF stated in a press release announcing Cross’ victory, “With this ruling, the court sent a clear message to the school board: ‘You are not above the law.’”

The court ruling said, “Upholding constitutional rights serves the public interest. Affirming the unconstitutional action taken against [Tanner] which has silenced others from speaking publicly on this issue, serves the public interest. The public’s knowledge that [Tanner’s] speech was permissible, is encouraged, and is free from governmental oppression serves the public interest. Governmental bodies being held in check for violating a citizen’s constitutional rights, serves the public interest.”


Zondervan won’t publish ‘God Bless the USA Bible,’ says marketing was ‘premature’ after backlash

By Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter

The Holy Bible

Zondervan and HarperCollins will not publish or manufacture a version of the Bible that would feature various patriotic American documents for the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, contrary to concerns expressed online.

Earlier this month, Meagan Clark of Religion Unplugged wrote an article reporting that the Michigan-based international Christian media and publishing company was “in talks” to release the God Bless the USA Bible on the 20th anniversary of the terror attacks that killed thousands of Americans in 2001.

This Bible version will reportedly include the lyrics to the 1984 song “God Bless the USA,” the U.S. States Constitution, the Pledge of Allegiance and other historic American documents.

But Casey Francis Harrell, senior director of corporate communications at HarperCollins, Zondervan’s parent company, stated in an email to The Christian Post on Thursday that the publisher had no plans to release the controversial version of the Bible.

“Zondervan is not publishing, manufacturing or selling the ‘God Bless the USA Bible,’” read the statement, which noted that nothing had been finalized between the two parties.

“While we were asked for a manufacturing quote, ultimately the project was not a fit for either party, and the website and marketing of the NIV project were premature.”

As of Thursday morning, the Bible version is being promoted on a website and can be pre-ordered for $49.99. Copies are expected to be shipped in late September.

God Bless the USA Bible

The initial report about the possibility of the God Bless the USA Bible being released prompted backlash online, including a petition backed by more than 900 signatories.

“Zondervan/HarperCollins has a been a great blessing to Christian publishing for many years. But a forthcoming volume damages this fine record,” the petition reads.

“This is a toxic mix that will exacerbate the challenges to American evangelicalism, adding fuel to the Christian nationalism and anti-Muslim sentiments found in many segments of the evangelical church.”

In addition, authors who had had works published by Zondervan expressed concern over the possibility of the God Bless the USA Bible being published. They include Shane Claiborne of Red Letter Christians, progressive evangelical Pastor Doug Pagitt, activist and speaker Lisa Sharon Harper, New York Times bestselling author Jemar Tisby and Professor of Church Growth and Evangelism Soong-Chan Rah of North Park University in Chicago.  

In an opinion column published by Religion Unplugged earlier this week, the same authors expressed support for the news that Zondervan was not going to publish the Bible version.

“This is not the first time there has been an attempt to fuse American nationalism with the holy book — in fact Thomas Nelson released ‘The American Patriot’s Bible’ over a decade ago, which was a very similar project,” they wrote.

“But what is new is a growing awareness of how dangerous nationalism is when coupled with faith,” they added. “After all, the Bible does not say ‘God bless America.’ It says, ‘God so loved the world.’” 

The God Bless the USA Bible is a product of a company called Elite Source Pro. The company’s president, Hugh Kirkpatrick, had earlier confirmed to Religion Unplugged that Zondervan awarded the licensing for the Bible. 

The website reported that the idea for the Bible version was formed when Kirkpatrick and his friends heard complaints from homeschool parents that public schools aren’t requiring students to read and understand the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Additionally, Kirkpatrick claimed that famous American symbols were increasingly being seen as “weaponized tools of the Republican party.”


This Bible should be published. The refusal to publish is another example of the battle between good and evil which began in the Garden of Eden. Cancel culture is just another tool of the devil. There is at least one publisher who will publish this Bible.

Follow Michael Gryboski on Twitter or Facebook

UPDATE: Girl Banned From Wearing ‘Jesus Loves Me’ Mask Is Still Pointing Classmates to Jesus

By Jesse T. Jackson -May 19, 2021

Jesus loves me

UPDATED May 19, 2021: Third grader Lydia Booth has been banned from wearing a mask that says “Jesus Love Me” at her elementary school. But the love Jesus is only shining brighter because of her stand.

“Dear Lydia, I’m praying for you!” said one of two sisters who wrote Lydia encouraging notes after learning what she is going through. The girl continued,

I’m glad that you’re a missionary. I’m so glad that God loves us and He sent His son to die for us! I know God is using us to tell others about Jesus. I know how you feel! I have a friend who doesn’t know God, but she doesn’t want to listen! I’m praying for her and I’m praying for you! I bet when she’s grown-up a little bit, I bet she’ll want to listen. I know God sees our troubles, and I know God will answer our prayers very soon! God loves you!

The other sister told Lydia, “We are praying for you” and “We love you.”

Lydia Booth, who attends Simpson Central Elementary School in Pinola, Miss., was banned from wearing her “Jesus Loves You” mask under the argument that it violates school policy. However, administrators have allowed other students to wear masks with messages on them, and Lydia’s mother, Jennifer, claims they have modified documents after the fact to justify banning Lydia from wearing her mask. Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Booth family on the grounds that the school is violating Lydia’s constitutional right to express her religious beliefs.

Some of Lydia’s peers are actually curious about Christianity because of her situation. One of her classmates now wants a “Jesus Love Me” mask as well. After hearing about the situation, an older sister of one of Lydia’s classmates decided to read the whole Bible.

Lydia says that when she was told she could not wear her mask any more, “It made me feel a little sad and confused…I love the words on that mask…I didn’t know why it was happening.” Her mother is proud of her for standing up for what she believes. Said Jennifer, “It’s powerful for my kids to see other kids being a witness for Christ and even living through some persecution for it.”

ChurchLeaders original article written on November 6, 2020, below:

On October 13, 2020, a third grader at Simpson Central Elementary School, located in Pinola, Miss., was forced to remove her mask that said “Jesus Loves Me” in large pink letters across it.

According to WLBT News, nine-year-old Lydia Booth was ordered by her principal to remove her mask and wear another one, her attorneys said.

On October 15, 2020, Simpson County School District’s Superintendent Greg Paes sent a letter out to all the parents, students, and staff that stated, “Masks cannot display political, religious, sexual or any inappropriate symbols, gestures or statements that may be offensive, disruptive or deemed distractive to the school environment. This expectation was outlined in our restart plan and is specific to masks only.” Paes also wrote that “the principal and superintendent will be the final authority on the appropriateness of any mask worn to school.”

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), who, according to their website, has been advocating for religious liberty, the sanctity of human life, freedom of speech, and marriage and family for more than 25 years, filed a federal lawsuit Nov. 2, 2020, on behalf of Lydia and her parents, Matthew and Jennifer Booth.

ADF attorney Michael Ross said, “Public schools have a duty to respect the free expression of students that the First Amendment guarantees to them.”

The lawsuit requests (line 10), “Preliminary injunctive relief is necessary because Lydia Booth desires to immediately wear her ‘Jesus Loves Me’ mask and masks with similar religious message, to school, but is self-censoring her speech because Defendants (Simpson County School District) have enforced and will continue to enforce their Religious Speech Policy against her, which will subject her to the escalating discipline outlined in those policies for repeat infractions, to and including suspension.”

The suit also claims that (line 17), “Lydia Booth is an adherent of the Christian faith and desires to share her religious views with her schoolmates.”

The filed lawsuit (line 67) gives examples of how the defendants regularly permit Lydia Booth’s schoolmates to wear masks with messages on them. The examples were provided by Booth’s parents who witnessed masks worn by students and faculty with the Jackson State University logo, New Orleans Saints logo, Black Lives Matter, and other expressive messages on them.

Principal Woodall called Lydia’s mother Jennifer (line 88) to inform her that her daughter had been required to wear a replacement mask due to Lydia’s mask reading, “Jesus Loves Me.” Woodall claimed that the student handbook prohibits religious messages on mask. When Mrs. Booth asked to be shown where that is located, Woodall referenced the “Dress Code for Students policy which prohibits ‘clothing advertising alcoholic beverages or drug culture, clothing with obscene language or gestures or clothing of any suggestive nature.’ ” Mrs. Booth told Principal Woodall that “Jesus Loves Me” doesn’t fit the criteria mentioned in the policy.

In an email to the principal and superintendent, Lydia’s mother responded shortly after the principal’s call and requested her child return to wearing her mask “TODAY” and have an apology to her from the school district. Mrs. Booth stated, “According to the Mississippi Student Religious Freedom Act that took effect July 1, 2013 you are prohibited from discriminating against students by their expression of religious perspectives.”

Assistant Superintendent Robert Sanders later replied to Lydia’s mother admitting that the student handbook does not prohibit her daughter from wearing the “Jesus Loves Me” mask, but the school’s Restart Plan (due to COVID-19) prohibits masks with “political, religious, or sexual references” on them. Mrs. Booth asked how a message on a T-shirt differs from one on a mask, referring to the handbook not prohibiting such clothing. Sanders responded by saying, “If the district allowed Lydia to wear the ‘Jesus Loves Me’ mask then the district would also have to allow a mask with the message ‘Satan Loves Me.’”

“Although that would be sad,” Lydia’s mother responded, “a student should be allowed to wear a mask with the message ‘Satan Loves Me’ if they chose to do so.”

ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer asserted, “No public school student should be singled out for peacefully sharing her religious beliefs with fellow students.”

The suit says Lydia Booth is seeking injunctive reliefdeclaratory relief, and nominal damages against Simpson County School District and the Board of Education of Simpson County, Mississippi, for violating her rights and the rights of other students under the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment.

Read the entire complaint here.

%d bloggers like this: