Design a site like this with
Get started

VIDEO Rising American Totalitarianism – Media On Dark Side – Gabbard – Lake – Jones – Owens

Rising American totalitarianism

Exclusive: Hanne Nabintu Herland compares today’s Western elites to pre-WWII German rulers

By Hanne Nabintu Herland October 12, 2022

Read Hanne’s The Herland Report.

As we watch how intolerance, repression of diversity and totalitarianism is growing yet again in the West, the German philosopher Hannah Arendt is worth revisiting. She is considered one of the most influential political theorists of the 20th century and spent many years examining how it was possible for a modern, democratic state such as pre-World War II Germany to turn into a totalitarian state and a brutal regime that killed millions of its own population.

In “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” Arendt analyzed the 20th century growth of totalitarianism that led to the silencing of an entire population out of fear of their own ruling elites. And it was precisely in Marxist-infused nations, such as the left-wing National Socialist (NAZI) system under Hitler and Communism under Stalin that the rigid requirement of consensus, ethnically, socially and religiously, took place.

The socialist groupthink, strict requirement of consensus, repression of free speech, zero tolerance for diversity of opinion, harsh consequences for those who did not conform to the standards of the government, a unison media narrative describing what to think and feel in every subject – this combined with strict ruling elites that controlled the economy made totalitarianism possible.

With it came the concentration camps and the Gulag, which Nobel Prize laureate Alexandr Solzhenitsyn pointed out is an inevitable consequence of communism – one of the fruits of Marxism: the need to physically get rid of those who oppose the system since these are considered the obstacle to total unity and “the communist paradise.”

Solzhenitsyn came to understand that Marxism and its offspring communism were wrong in asserting that the fight for justice was that between the proletariat – the working class – and the capitalist class. He explains in “The Gulag Archipelago”: “Gradually, it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties – but right through every human heart – and then through all human hearts. … And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained. And even in the best of all hearts, there remains … an un-uprooted small corner of evil.”

Centerfold in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ 1848 work, “The Communist Manifesto,” is the idea that the only solution to injustice between the classes is bloody revolution and terror. Only in this way, the working class would take power, expropriate funds and confiscate private property from the former ruling class and spend them in a new, socialist system. “There is only one way to shorten and ease the convulsions of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new – revolutionary terror,” Marx argued. Yet Marx, rather, introduced a system where a Marxist government class would replace the existing elites, controlling the communist working class even more than before. The repression seen among the horrifyingly intolerant communist state lords, where millions were sent to concentration camps and millions killed by their own leaders, defined totalitarian terror in the 20th century.

It is socialism – also a fruit of Marxism – that over time alters the population from being independent thinkers with individual rights protected by a conservative constitution to becoming subordinate, indoctrinated, groupthink communities full of fear of the government.

The change within the population goes from actively participating in local governments, speaking their minds, always looking for the abuse of power and addressing these topics in the media, to becoming a silent group in which “everyone publicly has the same opinion,” completely in line with one-sided media propaganda that only tells the government narrative. In such a system, the people becomes the tyranny of the mob, effectively turning each other over to the Gestapo in a system of active informants reporting and surveilling one another, in accordance with the will of the media-owning elites.

Many who escaped the Soviet Union later told their stories. Yuri Mashkov was one of them, a Soviet dissident who was exiled to the United States in the 1970s. He explained at a conference in New Jersey in 1978 that his life, during which he had spent many years in the Soviet concentration camps, came to change once he realized the reality behind the Soviet propaganda, that the system was completely repressive without justice or any kind of freedom. His training had taught him that communism was an idealistic teaching that brought happiness and peace. Mashkov describes the horror when realizing that in reality, communism was the very opposite. He discovered that Marxism in essence was a complete teaching of totalitarianism, of an absolute slavery, of the state desire for full control over its citizens.

The media’s walk on the dark side

Exclusive: Lt. Col. James Zumwalt shines light on fake ‘local’ news sites all originating from D.C.

By Lt. Col. James Zumwalt October 12, 2022

From 1918 until 1991, “Pravda” – meaning “Truth” – was the official newspaper of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. But the people of the Soviet Union understood something about Pravda that many naive Westerners did not. Despite its auspicious name, Pravda rarely published the truth. Interestingly, today dozens of news outlets around the U.S. promote themselves as independent local news websites when, in fact, they are not. Sadly, naive locals fall prey to them, allowing themselves to be misled in ways Soviet citizens were smart enough to avoid with Pravda.

More than four dozen news outlets represent themselves today on the internet as supposedly being independent local news websites; however, they are far from what they advertise. Instead, they fall under a single network managed by Democratic operatives pushing their political party’s agenda. All 51 of these websites are based in Washington, D.C., yet, to give a contrary appearance, they operate under names reflecting a non-Washington location, such as the “Milwaukee Metro Times.”

These news websites are not independent at all. They are linked together under a single for-profit corporate entity known as Local Report Inc. That company was established in 2021 in Florida and, ever since, has flown under the radar as far as its representation of but a single political ideology.

Most of the articles these websites post originate from a single source as well – The American Independent. This is a progressive media group that was started by David Brock, co-founder of Media Matters. It describes itself as the “No. 1 digital platform for progressive news,” claiming to “strive to report with honesty and integrity and shine a light on those in power who obstruct progress.”

While The American Independent reveals, in the interests of “honesty and integrity,” it is a progressive-centered news source, Local Report Inc. and its network of 51 websites undertake no similar effort to disclose their single-track progressive agenda, packaged as independent news.

Despite Local Report Inc.’s less than honest approach to news reporting, a much more blatant example of a hidden liberal bias by a newspaper occurred recently in Arizona. The Arizona Republic, the largest newspaper in the state, is recognized as favoring liberal causes. An ethical issue arose after a recent debate between the Republican and Democratic attorney general candidates, Abe Hamadeh and Kris Mayes, respectively.

During a 27-minute debate, moderators devoted the majority of the time (17 minutes) focusing on the Republican candidate’s stand on abortion and the 2020 presidential election. But even more egregious than this time imbalance was the fact that one of the moderators, Stacy Barchenger, who happened to be from the Arizona Republic, failed to disclose that the Democratic candidate had a lengthy career as a reporter for that same newspaper.

This was clearly an ethical violation, especially since the Arizona Republic had agreed, prior to the debate, it would disclose the relationship. Furthermore, despite the newspaper having in its possession evidence concerning allegations of insider trading by Mayes as well as her extreme left-leaning policy ideas, all this was suppressed. Outrageously, the newspaper apparently chose to toss fairness, impartiality and ethics aside in order to promote its preferred liberal candidate. It is shocking that the newspaper thought it could get away with taking such action.

In a written protest to the Arizona Newspaper Association, Hamadeh was generous to claim Barchenger “forgot to divulge her employer’s connection” concerning Mayes to the audience at the outset of the debate. Additionally, Hamadeh wrote that Mayes was not questioned at all, apparently only responding to Hamadeh’s comments, while Hamadeh was subjected to “harsh inquiries with numerous follow-up questions.” Hamadeh has demanded an ethics investigation be initiated – to include any interactions between the newspaper and Mayes that may have occurred prior to the debate.

The extent to which left-leaning news sources will go also was demonstrated by The Seattle Times. While it is typical for campaign ads that quote news sources to use that source’s masthead, when Republican Senate candidate Tiffany Smiley did just that, the newspaper demanded she remove its masthead from such a quote, claiming it “left the mistaken impression the Times had endorsed her campaign.” The Seattle Times has endorsed Smiley’s opponent, incumbent Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the last four times she has run for office without ever questioning Murray’s use of its masthead in her campaign ads.

Despite liberals in general also benefiting from a similarly minded social media that seeks to shut down conservative thought, they still feel a need to disguise their true agenda by creating the illusion it emanates from neutral sources. This anti-conservative mindset has progressed to the point now that news publications, which should be promoting free speech, brazenly demonstrate a contrary intent.

When it comes to freedom of speech and the press, sadly these liberals have managed to secure the best of both worlds for themselves, promoting an agenda protected from valid criticism. So inspired are they by the ideological rush generated by their doing so, either deceptively or brazenly, they fail to realize the bountiful rights of our republic are suffering a slow death, withering upon the vine of freedom. The media are taking a walk on the dark side and need to be called out for it.

Tulsi Gabbard Gives Joe Rogan an Epic Rant of How Insane Dems Have Become | DM CLIPS | Rubin Report

Joe Biden leading America to a ‘nuclear holocaust’: Tulsi Gabbard

LIVE – PBS Betrays Kari Lake, Clean Elections Commission & Arizona Voters — BIG MISTAKE!


rough language

The Greatest Lie Ever Sold | OFFICIAL TRAILER


VIDEO Clarence Thomas on Who’s Banning Thoughts – HUGE First Amendment Win For Texas, Ken Paxton and All Americans!

Video added

Clarence Thomas on Who’s Banning Thoughts


13 Sep 2022

Recent false news reports announced that the State of Florida had banned the iconic novel To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee from its state-wide curriculum, supposedly indicating Governor Ron DeSantis can’t handle a book on race relations.

It was utter nonsense, particularly since it is the Left that has banned this important book and in recent years from public school curriculums, such as in Burbank, California.

Based on this false reporting, Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers and others on the Left expressed outrage that Florida would ban this book from its schools. But these Leftists and their allies in the corporate media are hypocrites because they are perfectly happy to ban black Americans from having certain views.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been writing about this racism for years, and he discussed it in our new bookCreated Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words The book is a follow on to the very successful 2020 documentary by Michael Pack of the same name, which is based on 25 hours of interviews he conducted with Justice Thomas.

FILE – Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas delivers a keynote speech during a dedication of Georgia new Nathan Deal Judicial Center in Atlanta, Feb. 11, 2020. (Getty)

Clarence Thomas grew up in the Deep South in Savannah, Georgia, under state-enforced segregation. He spoke candidly about having to go to a separate library and a separate school, being banned from drinking out of certain water fountains and from going into the city’s main park – all because of his race. He talked about how morally wrong that was, and he made the following observation:

We agree that it was wrong for me to be prevented from going to the Savannah Public Library. Okay. People agree. That’s just against society.

So then, okay, what if they let me go in the library, but they said, “There’s a certain part of the library, or certain stacks in there, that are off limits to blacks?” Oh, that would also be wrong. Oh, okay. What if they say, “There are certain books that are marked, ‘No coloreds allowed’”? Would that be right? No, that would be wrong.

If all those things are wrong—it’s wrong for them to prevent me from being in the library, it’s wrong for them to prevent me from going to certain parts of the library, it’s wrong for them to prevent me from going to certain books in the library—why is it right for them to tell me I can’t have certain thoughts that are in the books in the library? Obviously, there’s no answer. It’s absurd.

Thomas recounted how when he first came into the Reagan administration, he was attacked for having his own views that were different from the black leadership:

It’s an interesting world we’re in, where people claim to be tolerant, but they really aren’t. For minorities, or if they put you in one of their designated groups, you’re not supposed to have certain thoughts. There were these set opinions that were supposed to be universal among certain groups, and to criticize these policies, particularly their effects, you were a bad person. Then license is given to others to attack you in whatever way they want to. You’re not really black because you’re not doing what you expect black people to do. You weren’t supposed to oppose busing; you weren’t supposed to oppose welfare.

But Thomas never bowed to these attacks, even when Hodding Carter, a white Southerner whose own father was at one time a white Supremacist, used nakedly racist language to attack Thomas, calling him one of those “chicken-eating preachers, who gladly parroted the segregationists’ line in exchange for a few crumbs from the white man’s table. He’s one of the few left in captivity.”

No one on the Left called Carter out.

According to Thomas, these attacks from the black leadership and white liberals had their intended effects: “There are any number of times there were blacks who would come up to me and whisper, ‘Oh I agree with you, but I’m not saying that’. . . And so the criticism, as a result, has its effect.  It creates a fear of being honest. There was that great line in Invisible Man where Ralph Ellison says that the worst he has ever been treated is when he told the truth.  So you’re not supposed to tell the truth.”

Ironically, even though the black leadership claims to be representing black Americans views, it is Thomas’ views that are more in line with the majority of black Americans.

File/An audio book stands on display as part of Chicago program involving the 40th anniversary edition of Harper Lee’s Pulitzer Prize winning novel “To Kill A Mockingbird” September 10, 2001 at a Borders Books and Music store in Chicago. (Tim Boyle/Getty Images)

Not surprisingly, the Left went berserk on Justice Thomas after the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade.  Despite the fact that black Americans  have historically been against abortion , and have opposed same sex marriages much more than whites, somehow it is acceptable for whites and blacks to call Justice Thomas an “Uncle Tom” for his legal views on these issues. The black leadership has long seen Thomas as a threat to the progressive views they spout.

Which brings us back to the Left’s over the top reaction to the bogus report that Florida was banning To Kill a Mockingbird from its school curriculum.  It’s stunning the Left could have this reaction, while simultaneously banning black Americans from holding the ideas of certain books.

Justice Thomas famously called out the Left’s attacks on him as a “high tech lynching.”  It was true then and even more true today.  Fortunately, Justice Thomas has stood strong and has provided the model for others to not cave to the rigid and racist ideology of the Left.

Mr. Pack and Mr. Paoletta are co-editors of the new book Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words, taken from over 25 hours of interviews Mr. Pack conducted with Justice Thomas for the film of the same name.  Mr. Pack is a documentary filmmaker, president of Manifold Productions, and former CEO of the U.S. Agency for Global Media. He has produced over 15 documentaries for public television, most recently “Created Equal.” Mr. Paoletta is a partner at the law firm Schaerr Jaffe LLP. He previously served as a lawyer in the George H.W. Bush White House, where he worked on the confirmation of Justice Thomas.

HUGE First Amendment Win For Texas, Ken Paxton and All Americans!

By Brian Lupo September 16, 2022

Today in Federal Court, Attorney General Ken Paxton and the American people scored a huge victory regarding censorship and banning of individuals based on their viewpoint.  The Gateway Pundit is also involved in a free speech lawsuit of their own in Missouri v. Biden.  This victory from AG Paxton will certainly help TGP’s case moving forward.

The case before the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was regarding House Bill 20, which “generally prohibits large social media platforms from censoring people based on the viewpoint of its speaker.”  Judge Andrew S. Oldham opined that while “the platforms urge us to hold that the statute is facially unconstitutional and hence cannot be applied to anyone at any time under any circumstances,”…”today, we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say.”

This opinion could have massive implications both in the social media sphere, and beyond, such as the NFL players banned from wearing a Thin Blue Line Flag on their helmet after 5 police officers were killed in Dallas, TX in 2016.  Florida, last year, passed a similar bill that would stop social media platforms from de-platforming individuals, especially those in the media and candidates for political office.  The bill was ultimately stopped from being implemented by Judge Robert Hinkle of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.  In this case, Judge Hinkle said:

TRENDING: BREAKING: DOJ Asks Appeals Court to Block Judge Aileen Cannon’s Mar-a-Lago Ruling – What Are They Hiding?

“The legislation compels providers to host speech that violates their standards — speech they otherwise would not host — and forbids providers from speaking as they otherwise would.”

This is a major victory in an ongoing battle over censorship and protections afforded to these tech oligarchs via Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.  The lopsided bill offers liability protections for the “providers” but no reciprocation to the People to ensure that they aren’t discriminated against based on personal ideologies, despite the bill stating that “the Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.”

Judge Oldham touches on this concept in his opinion:

“The implications of the platforms’ argument are staggering.  On the platforms’ view, email providers, mobile phone companies, and banks could  cancel the accounts of anyone who sends an email, makes a phone call, or spends money in support of a disfavored political party, candidate, or business.  What’s worse, the platforms argue that a business can acquire a dominant market position by holding itself out as open to everyone – as Twitter did in championing itself as “the free speech wing of the free speech party.”  Then, having cemented itself as the monopolist of “the modern public square”, Twitter unapologetically argues that it could turn and ban all pro-LGBT speech for no other reason than its employees want to pick on members of that community.”

Social media has become the new “town hall” of the modern world.  To give these companies protections from being sued for something a user said while allowing them free reign to determine what they will allow people to publish is an utter failure by our legislature to protect the interests of the People over those of corporations.  We saw in the 2020 election how this unchecked power to censor free speech was used against conservatives and President Donald Trump by covering up the New York Post’s story about the Hunter Biden laptop.  We saw it personally at The Gateway Pundit numerous times, but most recently when a reader reached out to tell us our recent article about ballot harvesting in Tarrant Co, TX was mysteriously deleted from her original Tweet:

Justice Clarence Thomas has implied that social media platforms need to be treated as “common carriers”, much like your cell phone.  This may be exactly the case that Justice Thomas was looking for when he said:

“Also unprecedented, however, is the concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties. We will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms.”

I’m sure the conservative Supreme Court will get an opportunity to chime in on this one.  In the meantime, this a huge victory for Texan and Americans!

RELATED: Far-Left Arsonists Burn Conservative Activist’s Dorm Room at Tulane University…The Scoop Video

Hat Tip Jennifer!

Democrat’s Operative Network Paying For Social Media Influencers To Lie For Jan 6th Committee

Strong Language


VIDEO School Board Pays Out Major Settlement After Censoring Critics and Deleting Their Comments from Board Meetings – Court Lifts Ban On Father Who Exposed Obscene Library Books

By ProTrumpNews Staff July 19, 2022

The Pennsbury School District was called out after speakers were shouted down and had their words edited out of recordings of school board meetings.

A solicitor for the Pennsbury School Board yelled, “You’re done!” while critics were speaking.

Simon Campbell and Doug Marshall were two of the community members that had their comments cut short and one had comments removed from the video of the meeting.

The comments taken out were from Dough Marshall – Marshall said “We’re creating a group of children who are essentially handicapped.”

TRENDING: FRAUD ALERT: Maricopa County GOP Chair Refuses Requests To Appoint Signature Challengers on Early Ballots — MASSIVE FRAUD EXPECTED!

The editing of information out of recordings of school board meetings brought the Pennsbury School District under fire recently.

Public comments relating to the board’s diversity and inclusion efforts, including the Educational Equity policy passed in May, were initially removed from the March and May meeting recordings.

Two community members whose comments were cut short in May — one of which also had his unabridged comments later taken out of the March meeting’s video — threatened lawsuits as they were asked to leave the microphone.

Here is a video of Simon Campbell calling out the school board.

The school board was recently forced to pay out a large settlement for censoring the speech of attendees.

The settlement states that they must pay $300,000 for the plaintiffs’ attorney fees and $17.91 to each plaintiff. The $17.91 is symbolic because 1791 was the year the First Amendment was ratified.

Last May, a solicitor for the Pennsbury School Board shouted down and censored critics of a new district policy during public comment time at a board meeting, screaming “you’re done!” Several of the targets of his wrath said, “see you in court.” After almost a year of litigation, the board agreed last night to settle the lawsuit and pay $300,000 in attorney’s fees and nominal damages.

In addition, the district has rewritten its public-comment policy to conform to the First Amendment and the federal court’s preliminary injunction ruling. It also abolished its so-called civility policy and parted ways with the law firm that was advising it during the time it censored comments, including the solicitor who shouted down speakers.

The lawsuit was filed last October by Bucks County residents Douglas Marshall, Simon Campbell, Robert Abrams, and Tim Daly. They were represented by attorneys from the Institute for Free Speech and Michael Gottlieb of Vangrossi & Recchuiti.

“School boards across the country should take note. Rules for public comments must respect the First Amendment rights of speakers. If you are limiting which opinions may be shared, you’ll be held liable for violating First Amendment rights,” said Alan Gura, Vice President for Litigation at the Institute for Free Speech.

The plaintiffs in the case were censored for attempting to criticize district policies, including efforts to promote contested ideas about diversity, equity, and inclusion. Marshall was once interrupted mere seconds into speaking because the solicitor objected to his use of the term “critical race theory” to describe the district’s initiatives. Critics of the board were cut off for addressing their comments to board members, while other speakers were permitted to directly praise board members and school employees.

“Rules for public comment periods are meant to maintain time limits and protect each speaker’s right to be heard, not police which viewpoints are expressed. Pennsbury’s rules were so vague and subjective that the board could effectively shut down any speech they didn’t like, and that’s exactly what they did,” said Del Kolde, Senior Attorney at the Institute for Free Speech.

Woke school boards lose again.

Court Overrules School District That Banned Father Who Exposed Obscene Library Books

Getty Images

Elizabeth Troutman • July 22, 2022 12:18 pm

A federal judge on Wednesday overruled a Maine school district that banned a parent from school property after he exposed library books promoting transgenderism and pornography.

The U.S. District Court for Maine issued a temporary restraining order allowing Shawn McBreairty back on school property after the father filed a lawsuit claiming the ban violated his constitutional rights. The court ruled that the First Amendment protects McBreairty’s comments at board meetings, where he has spoken out against sexualized school library books. The court also determined that the school board selectively applied its speech policy, which prohibits “vulgarity,” against McBreairty.

“Here, it is hard to shake the sense that the School Board is restricting the speech because the Board disagrees with both Mr. McBreairty’s opinions and the unpleasantness that accompanies them,” wrote District Judge Nancy Torresen. 

The school district’s criminal trespass notice against McBreairty is just the latest example of a school board attempting to silence parents who speak out against controversial sex and gender curricula. The National School Boards Association, which represents more than 90,000 school board members, called on the FBI last year to investigate parents who spoke out against sexualized lesson plans as potential domestic terrorists. In April, a board chair barred a Georgia mother from school board meetings after she protested sexually explicit books at her son’s middle school. Virginia’s Prince William County School Board issued a rule limiting public comment, which parents said was an attempt to stifle debate around controversial issues.

The Hampden, Maine, school district had barred McBreairty from all virtual and in-person school gatherings, the Free Beacon reported last week. The criminal trespass notice came after McBreairty spoke out at board meetings against school library books that focus on transgenderism, including The Other Boy, the story of a 12-year-old who tries to conceal that he is transgender when his family moves to a new town, and All Boys Aren’t Blue, which has been removed from libraries in at least eight states for concerns about “sexually graphic material.”

Marc Randazza, the First Amendment lawyer who represents McBreairty, said that while the Maine father can return to school board meetings, other parents could still run afoul of the school board’s vague speech policies, which prohibit “vulgarity,” “gossip,” and “irrelevance.” The judge ruled McBreairty’s remarks were not obscenities, as they made a “political or philosophical” point, meaning the ban against him was “unreasonable.” Randazza said a court should rule that the speech policy is unconstitutional.

“There’s a policy against criticizing any school employees or officials,” Randazza said. “Now you can go there and say nice things about him, but you can’t criticize him. Tell me how in the heck that passes the First Amendment muster.”

Randazza cited a similar case where residents sued the Pennsbury School District in Pennsylvania for violating their First Amendment rights and settled for $300,000. McBreairty said he hopes parents across the country will continue to speak out against sexualized curricula.

“I’m trying to be the tip of the sword for people in Maine because cancel culture is so venomous here,” McBreairty told the Free Beacon. “It’s time that students, parents, taxpayers, and teachers start to find their own voice.”

The lawyer representing the school board, Allison Economy, did not respond to a request for comment. The school district, Regional School Unit 22, did not respond to a request for comment.

Flannel Friday with Gregg Phillips; the Pit Defined

MG Show Published July 22, 2022

VIDEO Explosive Whistleblower Documents Support Missouri AG and Gateway Pundit’s Lawsuit Against Biden Regime’s Conspiring with Big Tech to Censor Free Speech

By Jim Hoft June 29, 2022

Video added

Totally overlooked by the mainstream press, at the beginning of May 2022, Missouri Attorney General (AG) Eric Schmitt’s office filed a landmark lawsuit against the Biden Administration.

Then, just last week, Attorney General Schmitt landed a big blow against Biden by filing a motion to prohibit the censorship conspiracy immediately.

SEE HERE for a copy of the lawsuit. 

** The Gateway Pundit had the honor and privilege to work with the Missouri Attorney General’s Office to offer extensive evidence of Big Tech’s large-scale censorship and coordination with the federal government. 

TRENDING: MORE LIES: Cassidy Hutchinson ALSO Lied about Handwritten Note in Testimony — And Liz Cheney KNEW IT WAS A FALSE because the Actual Author of the Note Testified It Was His!

The suit, brought forward in coordination with the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office, was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

In the suit, Missouri Attorney General Schmitt pounds away on the Biden regime for both conspiring with and also compelling Big Tech social media companies, to censor millions of Americans on their social media accounts through a governmentally created social media censorship program.

From the COVID-19 “pandemic’s” actual origins in Wuhan, China, to the masking of America, to the COVID-19 “vaccine,” to half the country’s concern about election fraud in the 2020 election, to the Hunter Biden Laptop, disfavored positions Americans posted on social media have been met with outrageous censorship.

  • sudden account termination;
  • account suspension;
  • imposing warnings or “strikes” against accounts to chill future speech;
  • shadow-banning;
  • demonetizing content;
  • adjusting algorithms to suppress or de-emphasize speakers or messages;
  • promoting or demoting content;
  • placing warning labels on content (“This Article’s Claims are False”);
  • suppressing content in OTHER users’ feeds;
  • promoting negative comments on disfavored content; and
  • requiring additional click-throughs to access content, among others.

You may recall that Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft and Joe Hoft have each been banned from Twitter, for calling attention to the Detroit TCF Center’s election night 3:30 a.m. illegal ballot dump of some sixty-thousand (60,000) ballots.  As soon as Jim Hoft tweeted out a link to the surveillance footage and promised more video to come, Twitter permanently banned the Gateway Pundit account.

Two weeks ago Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed a massive motion to prevent the Biden Administration from violating Americans’ First Amendment rights.  The Motion asked the Court to:

  1. Immediately restrain the Biden Administration from colluding with and/or compelling Big Tech to censor Americans’ speech; and
  2. Permit an investigation into Biden’s social-media censorship activities.

The Gateway Pundit provided a large amount of evidence of Big Tech’s censorship of the prominent news website to AG Schmitt’s Office, and the Attorney General filed the evidence with the Court.

And just a week later a whistleblower released documents to Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) on how the Biden administration deputized Big Tech as America’s unofficial domestic speech police, violating the First Amendment by proxy.

This plays right into the case that was filed by Missouri AG Eric Schmitt this month!

Newsweek reported:

New whistleblower documents obtained by Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) demonstrate the danger posed by the “paused”—but by no means shuttered—Disinformation Governance Board (DGB), and the regime from which it springs. Perhaps most significantly, they reveal the intent of the Deep State to deputize Big Tech as America’s unofficial domestic speech police, violating the First Amendment by proxy. The documents also illustrate the duplicity of those who minimized the DGB’s scope and ambition, raising questions about what else our national security apparatus is doing in pursuit of its war on wrongthink.

When the Biden administration first came under fire for creating a Ministry of Truth helmed by a serial spewer of disinformation, it was at pains to suggest the entity existed to combat disinformation imperiling the homeland from without—notwithstanding the DGB was housed in the domestic security apparatus. It purported to target supposed lies told by foreign traffickers about America’s open borders, and Russian disinformation going into the midterm elections.

Yet the planning documents for the DGB tell a different story. In a memo to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas titled “Organizing DHS Efforts to Counter Disinformation,” DHS officials Robert Silver and Samantha Vinograd wrote that disinformation threatens homeland security, beginning with “conspiracy theories about the validity and security of elections” and “disinformation related to the origins and effects of COVID-19 vaccines or the efficacy of masks.”

We will continue to post any updates on the case as it develops.

BIDEN’S AMERICA: Tucker Carlson Provides High-Level List of Political Arrests by Biden Regime

Big Sister II: Kamala Harris leads latest Biden ‘disinformation’ team

By  Steven Nelson June 16, 2022

Another day, another White House “disinformation” task force.

The Biden administration on Thursday created a new internet policy task force — this one led by Vice President Kamala Harris — with goals including “developing programs and policies” to protect “political figures” and journalists from “disinformation,” “abuse” and “harassment.”

The action follows the Department of Homeland Security’s disastrous April rollout of its Disinformation Governance Board, which was paused after outrage over the perceived step toward government-led internet censorship.

A presidential memorandum establishing the new task force describes a sweeping mission to protect people who seek out a role in public life from online critics.

“In the United States and around the world, women and LGBTQI+ political leaders, public figures, activists, and journalists are especially targeted by sexualized forms of online harassment and abuse, undermining their ability to exercise their human rights and participate in democracy, governance, and civic life,” the memo says.

“Online abuse and harassment, which aim to preclude women from political decision-making about their own lives and communities, undermine the functioning of democracy.”  

The new task force’s members include other Biden heavy hitters, such as Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Attorney General Merrick Garland and Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

The panel held its first meeting Thursday afternoon. Harris did not specifically use the term “disinformation” in her opening remarks, but declared, “all people deserve to use the Internet free from fear.”

The action follows the Department of Homeland Security's disastrous April rollout of its Disinformation Governance Board.
The action follows the Department of Homeland Security’s disastrous April rollout of its Disinformation Governance Board.

“We still have so much more work to do to protect people from online harassment and abuse, which is why the work of this task force is so important,” Harris said.

“Context: Well, the Internet is an essential part of life in the 21st Century. Can’t get around it, can’t get around without it.”

Harris added: “One in three women under the age of 35 report being sexually harassed online. Over half of the LGBTQ+ people in our country are survivors of severe harassment. Nearly one in four Asian Americans report being called an offensive name.”

The vice president said “no one should have to endure abuse just because they are attempting to participate in society.”

The Biden administration on Thursday created a new Internet policy task force -- this one led by Vice President Kamala Harris.
The Biden administration on Thursday created a new internet policy task force — this one led by Vice President Kamala Harris.

Within 180 days, the panel will submit to President Biden a blueprint that “outlin[es] a whole-of-government approach to preventing and addressing technology-facilitated gender-based violence, including concrete actions that executive departments, agencies, and offices have committed to take to implement the Task Force’s recommendations.”

Within a year, the board will issue a report with “additional recommendations and actions” advising broader steps that can be taken by Internet platforms, state and local governments and schools, the document says.

In April, Biden came under fire for the creation of what critics called a “dystopian” disinformation bureau under DHS, which many viewed as a way for the government to police free speech online.

Conservatives slammed the “Disinformation Governance Board” and noted its timing — coming after Elon Musk vowed to make Twitter a free speech haven through his $44 billion takeover of the social media platform notorious for selectively censoring right-leaning points of view.

The new task force's members include Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Attorney General Merrick Garland and Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
The new task force’s members include Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Attorney General Merrick Garland and Secretary of State Antony Blinken (above).

The board’s chairperson, Nina Jankowicz, drew fire and ultimately withdrew from the project after it was revealed she repeatedly tried to spread doubt about The Post’s reporting about Hunter Biden’s notorious laptop, telling the Associated Press in October 2020 that it should be viewed as “a Trump campaign product.” 

In addition, Jankowicz had pushed the since-debunked claim in 2016 that then-presidential candidate Donald Trump had a tie to Kremlin-linked Alfa-Bank, an allegation at the center of a trial of a Clinton campaign lawyer accused by special counsel John Durham of lying to the FBI. 

The misinformation czar was also ripped for a bizarre TikTok performance from February 2021 in which she altered the lyrics to the “Mary Poppins” song “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” to be about fake news.

A presidential memorandum establishing the new task force describes a sweeping mission to protect people who seek out a role in public life from online critics.
A presidential memorandum establishing the new task force describes a sweeping mission to protect people who seek out a role in public life from online critics.

Within a month, her role and the panel had been scrapped.

On a Wednesday evening press call, a Biden administration official said the new task force contrasts with the Disinformation Government Board in that “we are particularly focused on online activities that are illegal conduct, such as cyber stalking or non consensual distribution of intimate images, or targeted harassment.”

However, the memo establishing the panel describes a broader mission and specifically invokes criticism of public figures — who in the US legal system have a more difficult time suing for defamation to allow room for political speech, and also because they sought out the spotlight.

The memo says, “The Task Force shall work across executive departments, agencies, and offices to assess and address online harassment and abuse that constitute technology-facilitated gender-based violence, including by … developing programs and policies to address online harassment, abuse, and disinformation campaigns targeting women and LGBTQI+ individuals who are public and political figures, government and civic leaders, activists, and journalists in the United States and globally.”

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, responding to a question from The Post at her regular briefing Thursday, said she wasn’t familiar with the degree to which the task force would focus on “disinformation.”

 Within 180 days, the board will submit to President Biden a blueprint that "outlin[es] a whole-of-government approach to preventing and addressing technology-facilitated gender-based violence.
Within 180 days, the board will submit to President Biden a blueprint that “outlin[es] a whole-of-government approach to preventing and addressing technology-facilitated gender-based violence.”

“I would need to talk to our team,” Jean-Pierre said, referring questions to Harris’ office, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In April, Taylor Lorenz, a reporter who specializes in covering internet culture at the Washington Post, gained significant attention by alleging online harassment — drawing sympathy from some and criticism from others who note that digital trolls come with the territory of working at major news outlets.

Lorenz, a former New York Times journalist who broke down in tears on MSNBC while recounting “harassment” she has experienced online, then went on to publish an article revealing the identity of the social media user, drawing accusations that she was “doxxing” the anonymous woman, who operates the Twitter account “Libs of TikTok.”

“Doxxing” is the term used to describe the act of posting the personal information of those who wish to remain anonymous. Critics accused Lorenz of hypocrisy after it was claimed that she showed up at the home of the woman’s relatives to ask questions.187

What do you think? Post a comment.

The “Libs of TikTok” account, which posts TikTok videos from liberals and has generated more than 662,500 followers, posted an image of Lorenz outside the home of one of her relatives.

Lorenz defended her decision to reveal the woman’s identity, tweeting: “Reporters make phone calls, send messages, show up places, and knock on doors when reporting out a story. I reported this story out extensively, using every tool I had, to ensure I had the correct woman.”


Photo of Nina Jankowicz with text saying "Big sister is watching you."

Biden blasted for policing free speech with ‘dystopian’ disinformation bureau

VIDEO Senator Josh Hawley Reveals DHS Emails Showing Coordinated Effort for Govt to use Big Tech to Censor American Speech – Twitter Reverses Position with Musk

June 8, 2022 Sundance

From the moment the DHS disinformation governance board was discovered it was obvious the agency was created in order for Homeland Security to partner with social media platforms to control, monitor and track the speech of American citizens.  DHS denied that was the intent; however, Senator Josh Hawley has discovered emails showing all suspicions were accurate.

Senator Hawley appeared on Tucker Carlson Wednesday night to discuss. WATCH:

Email below…


Twitter Reverses Position, Will Allow Elon Musk Access to Background Data

June 8, 2022 Sundance

I think most people agree, the request from Elon Musk to see the background data from Twitter, used to evaluate bots and fake accounts, was entirely reasonable.

Twitter’s prior position that they would not permit Musk’s team to see the data stream was in ordinary violation of the terms of purchase.  It would seem to be commonsense that Musk has every right to inspect the data and evaluate Twitter’s prior assertions.

WASHINGTON POST – After a weeks-long impasse, Twitter’s board plans to comply with Elon Musk’s demands for internal data by offering access to its full “firehose,” the massive stream of data comprising more than 500 million tweets posted each day, according to a person familiar with the company’s thinking, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the state of negotiations.

The move aims to end a standoff with the billionaire, who has threatened to pull out of his $44 billion deal to buy Twitter unless the company provides access to data he says is necessary to evaluate the number of fake users on the platform.

The firehose could be provided as soon as this week, the person said. Currently some two dozen companies pay for access to the trove, which comprises not only a real-time record of tweets but the devices they tweet from, as well as information about the accounts that tweet.

[…] Twitter’s leaders are skeptical of Musk’s ability to use the fire hose to find previously undetected information: The data stream has been available for years to some two dozen companies, which pay Twitter for the ability to analyze it to find patterns and insights in the daily conversation. They, along with some analysts and Silicon Valley insiders, say that Musk is using the data requests as a pretext to wiggle out of the deal or to negotiate a lower price. (read more)


VIDEO Australian eSafety Commissioner Tells World Economic Forum Audience It is Time to Recalibrate Free Speech – ‘Jail or something worse’ for Tucker

May 23, 2022

Australia has an eSafety Commissioner named Julie Inman-Grant.  While delivering remarks to the World Economic Forum summit in Davos, Switzerland, she outlined a new on-line era where free speech would need to be “recalibrated,” and the ability to be free from something called “on-line violence.”  WATCH:

For the past several years we have noted a progressive, totalitarian, shift in speech, specifically a redefinition of the word “violence.”  Speech the leftists do not like, they call violence; and violence the leftists support, they call speech.   As a result, the overlay of a newly recalibrated on-line world for speech and violence would be modified accordingly.

Speech the Big Tech consortium would define as against their views would be considered on-line violence and thus controlled by the governmental guardians of the internet like the eSafety Commissioner.  As you can see in the video below, “violence” now includes their perception of something happening on a metaphysical level. An emotional impact.  They have a spiritual avatar that they feel the drive to defend from the viewpoints of the Others.

‘Jail or something worse’: Ex-Fox News reporter goes to war with Tucker Carlson

‘The U.S. government is going to have to stop the lying’

By Joe Kovacs May 23, 2022

Tucker Carlson of Fox News (video screenshot)

Tucker Carlson of Fox News (video screenshot)

A former top reporter for Fox News is now going to war with Tucker Carlson, suggesting the highest-rated host at the popular network could end up in jail or “something worse” for what is aired on his program.

Carl Cameron, one-time chief political correspondent who left the Fox News Channel in 2017, was interviewed Saturday by Jim Acosta of CNN, and compared what Carlson airs on his show to falsely crying fire in a crowded movie theater.

“The fact of the matter is, if you disturb the peace by starting a riot in a movie theater, cops are going to arrest you and you might end up in jail or you might end up in something worse.”

TRENDING: DHS sounds alarm of violence against 2 groups in America over Roe ruling

Cameron even called on Joe Biden to take action against Carlson and those online who are likeminded.

“The president has to be more forceful and sooner or later the law enforcement and the U.S. government is going to have to stop the lying because it’s causing people’s deaths,” he indicated.

“It’s not just Fox, it’s social media in general. It’s on the internet. And we have to remember that a good portion of what we read is coming from folks who aren’t Americans, pretending to be Americans in order to gaslight them even worse.” WATCH:

Cameron’s remarks echoed what he told MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace on May 17 when the two were discussing the aftermath of mass shootings.

“What happens at Fox News when something like this happens?” Wallace asked Cameron.

“I can’t even imagine. It’s partly why I ended up gettin’ out of there,” Cameron responded.

Carl Cameron (Video screenshot)

Carl Cameron (Video screenshot)

“It really is kind of horrible to think that journalists with national and international capacity are putting together this type of nonsense.

“I think the president did a great job. I wish he had done a lot of this a lot sooner, and we need a lot more from the left and the middle, and we got to watch out because the Republicans have become the purveyors of misinformation, and when our two-party system is broken like that, democracy is seriously in trouble.

“The president acknowledged that it’s time to actually start doing things and maybe taking some names and putting people in jail.”


In the wake of Cameron’s CNN interview Saturday, some online reaction included:

  • “If the police should stop people from lying then they should start with Carl Cameron.”
  • “Didn’t Jim and the left push Russian collision for 4 years?”
  • “CNN needs to jailed 😂 🤣 🤣”
  • “I love these Leftists praising the Constitution in one breath, then saying government needs to crush free speech in the next breath.”
  • “Nice propaganda piece here. They never specifically said what he was lying about.”
  • “Who are these two Nimrods?”
  • “I expect the comments to be disabled after people calling out CNNs bullsh**.”

VIDEO Free Speech Bullied Into Suppression in US House of Representatives – Disinformation Board

Former Rep. Steve King Reveals What Really Goes On In Capitol Hill: McCarthy Forcing GOP Members To Sell Out To Globalists And ‘Worshipped’ The New York Times

By Alicia Powe April 27, 2022 updated

After years of constantly praising The New York Times, capitulating to Liz Cheney and the Democrat leadership and kicking members who stand in the way of advancing a progressive agenda off of their committees, thereby crippling their ability to fundraise, inescapable karma is coming full circle for conniving House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy, warns former Rep. Steve King.

“The New York Times is McCarthy’s Bible,” King told The Gateway Pundit in an exclusive interview. “McCarthy, more or less worshipped the NYT and the NYT reporter to me. He said the NYT would not make a mistake; they are professionals — they wouldn’t make a mistake even in punctuation. Now here we are, the NYT turned around and laid this on him.”

“He’s also said that he can remember every word, every pause, every punctuation that he ever said to the press in the last six months,” the former Iowa congressman added. “That’s Rainman stuff. There is no one that can do that.”

Last week, the New York Times leaked explosive secretly recorded audio from a private conversation between McCarthy and Liz Cheney on Jan 10, 2021. During the call, McCarthy assured Cheney he would advise Trump to resign following Cheney’s references to the events of January 6 and the 25th Amendment.

TRENDING: Biden Regime Announces Creation of “Disinformation Governance Board” Under the Authority of Homeland Security with a Lunatic in Charge

McCarthy also argued members of Congress who were complaining about the rigged election results should be censored and banned from social media platforms along with the sitting president of the United States.

Kings cautioned that the California politician longs to be Speaker of the House and with “cunning duplicity” will act as cutthroat as needed to get that position, primarily by derailing and unseating members that challenge him or the establishment’s agenda.

“Every move that he makes goes through the filter – the calculation of, ‘Does it hurt me or help my prospects to become Speaker of the House?’ That’s his abiding goal in life. Most of us that have been around him have recognized that for a number of years. Whatever heavy-handed stuff that he thinks he can get away with that advances that cause, that’s what he will do,” he said. “People being removed from committees was almost unheard of until McCarthy came on the scene.”


Just a handful of Republican members of Congress have called attention to the current crises that present existential threats to the U.S. Constitution and the republic. Any lawmaker who strays from McCarthy and the globalist agenda, dares to call attention to political prisoners who are languishing in solitary confinement for protesting glaring election theft on January 6, attempting to halt governmental “vaccines” mandate compulsory, or refusing to compromise their values, for example, face penalty.

King detailed McCarthy’s “pay to play” apparatus for distributing powerful positions in the House.

“Almost all of them are compromised – wherever they might stand on any of those issues,” explained the former chairman of the Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. “Here’s how that works. A freshman gets elected and most of them are ideological, they want to go make a difference and they’ve got an agenda. They get in and leadership says to them, ‘Now, you elected people to come into Washington, we are going to give you orientation.’ For me, that was eleven days — two days of orientation and nine days of indoctrination.”

“And they’ll tell you this: ‘Your job is to raise money. You go to your committee and vote when you have to, go to the floor and vote when you have to. Otherwise, we’ll bring you over to the National Republican Congressional Committee. Pick up the phone and dial down through this list and raise money. Then you give the money to the party and that will have a lot to do with your next committee assignment and a lot to do with your pathways into leadership or your legislation that might be getting passed. And if you don’t do that, they will shut down your endeavor,” he continued. “They are policing it through all of this.”

While previous GOP Speakers of the House, John Boehner and Paul Ryan threw their lot in with the Trump-haters and leftists, “greedy” McCarthy takes the cake, King argued.

“I put this at the feet of McCarthy, and I’ve watched him for three years putting this together. It was served up to me in a blander way when I arrived than what it is now. Now, Kevin McCarthy gets to unilaterally make these decisions: what committees you will be on, whether you’ll have a role ever as a subcommittee chair, a full committee chair or an honorable role as the whip, the deputy whip or something along that nature – or maybe the chairman of the NRCC itself. He’ll make those decisions,” he said. “McCarthy controls every assignment. He will say the Steering Committee makes those decisions — that’s a flat-out lie. The Steering Committee is handpicked by McCarthy and their assignments depend also upon the goodwill of McCarthy. Every gavel, McCarthy can kill. He can bypass somebody that has 15 years of seniority over the second guy because he doesn’t like what they say or think. If he says to the PACs on K street, ‘Don’t send money to candidate X,’ they don’t send money.”

King explained how McCarthy controls the House GOP through fear.

“All of these members are afraid that their political careers are going to come to a halt,” King continued. “If you get leadership to endorse your legislation, it’s coming to the floor. McCarthy withholds that unless you play ball with him. He also decides whether you do foreign travel or not – that comes right out of the mouth of Kevin McCarthy. Then the non-governmental organizations out there, other organizations that are operating around the Hill, get that message. So, the invitations that you were getting to give speeches and build that network and support from the NGOs, stops, dries up and may even stop immediately.”


After serving in the U.S. House of Representatives for 17 years, King lost his re-election bid in 2020 following a hit piece on the conservative firebrand published by The New York Times.

During a 2019 phone call with NYT reporter Trip Gabriel, King discussed the perils of mass illegal immigration to Western civilization, as he had throughout his entire political career. Gabriel allegedly conflated King’s references to “Western civilization” with “white supremacy.”

“It was a 56-minute interview. There’s no tape. There are no notes.  I thought that interview was going to be approved by my communications director and it hadn’t,” King explained. “Since 2000, I had never been quoted uttering those words, ‘white nationalism, white supremacy’ – I don’t think in those terms. But during that same period of time, I had been quoted saying ‘Western civilization’ 276 times.

“Gabriel admitted that he had been fed me those terms ‘white nationalism, white supremacist.’ If I said those words, it was to say, ‘Yeah, I understand how these got to be pejorative terms and they were weaponized by the Democrat Party.’ But Western civilization, how did that language become offensive?”

Carrying water for “the globalists and Never Trumpers,” the California lawmaker who aspires to ban his colleagues from the social media platforms, allegedly conspired with the New York Times to frame and oust the conservative firebrand and then refused to allow due process.

Just hours after the libel spread like wildfire, McCarthy shut down all paths that would allow King to set the record straight, removed King from all committees and shut down the longtime congressman’s ability to fundraise.

“People being removed from committees was almost unheard of until McCarthy came on the scene. Nobody in history was bounced for a misquote anywhere, or for what they said anywhere at any time. Every lawmaker that had been previously removed from the committees had convictions or indictments, and federal ones at that,” King said. “I never had any place that I could make my case. There was no due process of any kind. Every effort I made was shut down and blunted by Kevin McCarthy, his staff and Liz Cheney. This came down and all of a sudden I am utterly canceled. No one that had been removed from their committees by their own party has ever survived the next election. McCarthy knows that.”

King agreed that he should have recorded his conversation with the NYT to protect himself from libel and advised others to take the same precaution when engaging with dishonest media.


GOP Members of Congress quickly make enemies when they refuse to play ball or “stand in the way of the establishment’s agenda over and over again,” the ex-congressman admonished.

“I was elected to Congress in 2003, and then from that point forward, I carved out more and more independence. I emerged throughout those years as the “conscience of conservatives” in the House of Representatives,” King said. “I led on trying to kill Obamacare. After Obamacare passed, I led on the cutting off of all funding to implement or enforce Obamacare. I brought the first repeal legislation to repeal it. I drafted that and the morning after, it passed and was signed into law – as soon as the door opened, I was there.

“I was one of the handful of people that pushed John Boehner out of the speaker’s chair. He was cutting deals with Nancy Pelosi and trying to force-feed them to conservatives. It was clear to me that he wasn’t going to secure the border or repeal Obamacare. Those guys, they had me marked and they were going to kill everything I tried to do. So, I’d bring in my amendments rather than legislation. And I ended up with more amendments offered and a higher percentage of them passed than any active amendment offerors,” he continued. “I just went to battle every day. All of those things just irritated leadership.”

King described how McCarthy uses racial, ethnic and sexual quotas in his political calculations including the endorsement of candidates and selection of committee assignments.

While every Republican member of Congress is forced to raise money for the National Republican Congressional Committee, the NRCC uses the money to advance identity politics under the guise of “equity,” “diversity” and “affirmative action” and fund the campaigns of progressive candidates.

King’s refusal to fundraise for the left-wing causes of the National Republican Congressional Committee irked McCarthy. But aggravation between the GOP minority leader and renegade Iowa lawmaker came to a boiling point when King introduced the “heartbeat bill.

I brought the Heartbeat Protection Act to Congress. I had 174 cosponsors on that bill – that’s almost twice as many as you need to get a markup in a committee. I had a hundred percent promise to get the mark up in the Judiciary Committee, not a promise to go to the floor, but we had the votes to pass it,” King said. “Kevin McCarthy flat killed that bill in December 2018 while we had floor time to do it. I pushed the issue until I forced an answer, but he killed it. He did this damage to the pro-life movement. At that time, I was the strongest pro-life voice in the country, and he killed it off. McCarthy attacked me. He said that’s not the platform. He excoriated me for defending those babies.

“Then, Kevin McCarthy continued to agitate from behind the scenes. The establishment globalists decided they wanted to get rid of me and unloaded everything on me in the fall of 2018. They had already had a few million dollars lined up against me on the Democrat side – I could withstand all that they would throw at me on that side. But a week out from the elections, Steve Stivers, then-chairman of the NRCC, tried to politically assassinate me — calling me a ‘racist,’ ‘bigot’ and every kind of ‘phobe.’ My ‘close friends’ in the Republican Party started to say, ‘Steve King is going to lose his seat’ and undermining me.

King urged every Republican member of Congress to expose McCarthy and expel the aspiring Speaker of the House from the party.

“Every single institution in America has been influenced or corrupted by the leftists and new world order proponents. That explains the Never Trumpers and the elitists and the establishment. They are aggressive, they are well-funded and there’s a network of this,” he said. “Nothing changes until leadership changes. They will perpetuate this same thing over and over again.”

The embattled former congressman comprehensively exposes the US political system and the DC swamp in his recently published book, “Walking Through the Fire: My Fight for the Heart and Soul of America.”

“This book – I couldn’t get anybody to publish it because they didn’t want my name on their website. I’m too ‘toxic.’ They’ve turned my career in public service which spans nearly a quarter of a century into toxicity. It so toxified me that my leverage has been reduced substantially,” he said. “This book should be required reading for every candidate for Congress and could be the very document that denies the speakership to Kevin McCarthy.”

White House NSA Organizes Security Summit With 50 Nation Peers to Discuss Future of the Internet

April 28, 2022 by Sundance

Given what we discussed yesterday, this announcement {SEE HERE} should leave us all feeling warm and fuzzy… NOT!


What could possibly go wrong when the National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, organizes a “minister level launch of the Declaration for the Future of the Internet.”   Put more succinctly, that would be 50 nation intelligence ministers getting together to decide what they will permit on the internet.

Apparently, a collective partner rule book is forthcoming.   Big Tech will be given specific instructions on how to comply.

The global rulebook on how to handle, define and eliminate ‘disinformation’, ‘misinformation’ and ‘malinformation’ on the world-wide internet.

Sounds like satire, but it’s totally legit.

This meeting provides more context for the formation of a Homeland Security “disinformation board.”


Tucker: This the point where we have to draw the line


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.”


Major ruling for foster parents hounded by state’s anti-Christian bias

‘Government cannot punish any American simply because it disagrees with their religious views’

March 6, 2022

(Image by Markus Trier from Pixabay)

(Image by Markus Trier from Pixabay)

A federal appeals court has ruled that a state has no right to punish parents who provide care for foster children for their religious beliefs about family, marriage and sex.

The ruling comes from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which ruled in favor of Michael and Jennifer Lasche of New Jersey.

The state’s children welfare agency had removed the couple’s foster child and suspended their license after interrogating the couple, demanding details about their religious beliefs about human sexuality.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which worked on the couple’s case, said the opinion now will allow them to right to care for foster children without being required to hide their faith.

“The appellate court also affirmed, based on allegations in the complaint, that taking away the Lasches’ foster license simply because they shared their religious beliefs with a foster child violates constitutionally protected freedoms,” the ADF reported.

“The government cannot punish the Lasches—or any other American—simply because it disagrees with their religious views,” said Michael P. Laffey, an attorney allied with the organization.

“Michael and Jennifer are wonderful foster parents, and the child entrusted to them thrived under their loving care. And even though the foster child wanted to be a part of the couple’s religious life, the state sought to punish them for their Christian faith. We are pleased to see the 3rd Circuit affirm that they can continue fighting for their fundamental right to exercise their religious beliefs.”

The couple had sued the state after officials suspended their license and took custody of the child living with them. The state’s actions followed interrogations by officials about the Lasches’ beliefs.

The case ended up at the appeals court after a district judge dismissed the complaint.

“The Constitution protects Michael and Jennifer’s freedom to peacefully live out their religious beliefs in every area of life, including in the wonderful service they are providing as foster parents to children in need,” pointed out lawyer Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse.

The couple had served as foster parents for more than a decade and had hoped to adopt their foster child when the state Division of Child Protection and Permanency attacked their faith.

The court ruling said, “The First Amendment secures the ‘freedom to believe and [the] freedom to act.’ Consistent with that protection, the Lasches allege two forms of constitutionally protected activity—one involving religious belief, and the other, action inspired by religious belief. With respect to belief, the Lasches identify their religious opposition to same-sex marriage as constitutionally protected. That is correct: the Free Exercise Clause provides an absolute right to hold religious beliefs.”

The ruling also said the couple’s decision to share their beliefs was constitutionally protected conduct.


%d bloggers like this: