Minimal Media Coverage of Attempted Assassinations and The Dog the Didn’t Bark

If they were real journalists, the U.S. corporate media would be vigorously examining the many claims raised in this video (and many similar videos and posts on X (Twitter). It would be nonstop, 24/7. Similarly, if someone tried to shoot Kamala Harris, the "news" media would stop at NOTHING to find out exactly and precisely what happened, how it happened and why.

Too many things simply don't add up regarding the two recent attempts on Donald Trump's life, but revealing the facts might not be convenient for the big media corporations. Vigorously investigating how these two allegedly unfunded and unconnected "renegades" came so close to killing Donald Trump might even impugn the operations and intentions of the U.S. security state. It is stunning to watch "journalists" doing the bare minimum, repeatedly taking the attitude: Just move on . . . nothing to see here. They are working hard to normalize the fact that people sometimes try to kill a major candidate for president. This lack of interest, the failure or journalists to care about major stories, is as disturbing as the blatant censorship and government funded propaganda we've seen over the past five years.

For those who think all of the questions and suspicions of this young woman on TikTok are far-fetched, that the U.S. security state would never do the terrible things that it does to other countries to our own country, consider that the ubiquitous censorship, government propaganda (including the claim of Russian collusion), the abject disinterest of our corporate media and perhaps much much more might be the most recent manifestations of a 60+ year work in progress.

If you think that the constant state of war promoted by the U.S. is the only option, your brain has been broken by sophisticated U.S. government psy-ops. You can't simply make these serious concerns magically disappear by uttering "conspiracy theory" as though this phrase were one of Harry Potter's incantations.

Continue ReadingMinimal Media Coverage of Attempted Assassinations and The Dog the Didn’t Bark

The Silence of the White House While Speech is Being Muzzled World Wide

The silence of the White House is Deafening, too horrible for most Americans to contemplate even though it deeply affects every American.

David Sachs:

"American politicians speak constantly about the indispensable role of the United States in leading the free world against authoritarianism. If that is true, why is the White House so silent in the face of new global threats to free speech? In January, American citizen Gonzalo Lira died in a Ukrainian prison for posting YouTube videos; the State Department didn’t lift a finger to help. Last week, Telegram founder Pavel Durov was arrested in France for the crime of insufficient content moderation. Now Brazil has banned X for resisting the diktats of a tyrannical judge, who salivates over the possibility of jailing @elonmusk.

The EU is one step behind, with Eurocrat Thierry Breton pursuing a criminal investigation against Elon for “platforming disinformation,” which Breton defines to include a conversation with Donald Trump.

In the UK, the government of Keir Starmer imprisons critics of open borders with more zeal than it prosecutes violent crime. In Canada, Justin Trudeau crushed a trucker protest against vaccine mandates by asserting sweeping new powers to freeze bank accounts.

At no point has the White House expressed concern about this new iron curtain that seems to be descending across the West. Quite the contrary, Mark Zuckerberg confirmed that the Biden-Harris administration repeatedly pressured Meta to censor during Covid. Worse, the FBI primed Facebook to censor true stories about Biden Family corruption by suggesting that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation (even though the FBI knew it was authentic).

Barring court intervention, TikTok will shut down in the U.S. on January 19, 2025 thanks to a new power authorized by Congress to ban websites and applications that the President determines are subject to the influence of a foreign adversary. X may not be far behind if liberal elites and deep state apparatchiks like Robert Reich and Alexander Vindman get their wish. They have called for the U.S. to adopt Brazil’s and the EU’s approach and “rein in” Elon Musk.

Hypocritically, the same voices demanding this crackdown are also the loudest in proclaiming the West to be engaged in a “war on authoritarianism” against countries like Russia and China. But whatever their other sins, Russia and China are in no position to deprive American citizens of their free speech rights; only our own government can do that.

Similarly, if Western leaders truly wanted to prevent authoritarianism, the easiest place to start would be at home, protecting the civil liberties of their own citizens. Instead they seem obsessed with deflecting the public’s attention onto foreign enemies, as Orwell depicted in the Two Minutes Hate in 1984.

As this battle over free speech heats up in an election year, where do the candidates stand? Donald Trump has declared his support for free speech whereas Kamala Harris has said nothing and can be expected to continue her administration’s policy of tacit approval of creeping censorship. In just two months, Americans will decide. Do we actually lead the free world in standing up for free speech, or do we accept the authoritarianism we claim to detest so much?"

Continue ReadingThe Silence of the White House While Speech is Being Muzzled World Wide

Tulsi Gabbard, the “Terrorist”?

More confirmation that we are living under military rule on a national level and that Kamala Harris has been picked to be the mascot for the elitists who now call the shots. I am writing this as someone who refuses to vote for either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump.

Continue ReadingTulsi Gabbard, the “Terrorist”?

FIRE’s Position on TikTok Litigation

Excerpt from FIRE's recent Amicus Brief:

Never before has Congress taken the extraordinary step of effectively banning a communications platform, let alone one used by half the country. But this spring, Congress did exactly that when it passed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. The law not only threatens TikTok’s U.S. operation but also exposes other online platforms to burdensome restrictions, including potential bans, if they have even tenuous connections to certain foreign countries.

TikTok and its users quickly filed lawsuits in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which the act gives exclusive jurisdiction for challenges to the law. FIRE, joined by the Institute for Justice and the Reason Foundation, filed an amici curiae — “friend of the court” — brief supporting the plaintiffs. We argued the law violates the First Amendment in two ways.

First, it explicitly targets a specific communications platform — and the users who speak and access content on it — for the purpose of silencing opinions and ideas that lawmakers oppose. Such attempts to suppress disfavored views strike at the heart of the First Amendment.

Second, to the extent the law is motivated by national security concerns, Congress has failed to build a public record explaining why such a dramatic restriction of Americans’ right to speak and access information is necessary to address those concerns. (However, the court will not consider the brief for procedural reasons explained in the note following this article.)

Recent development:

Continue ReadingFIRE’s Position on TikTok Litigation