Category: Media

America’s Censorship Regime Goes on Trial
Missouri v. Biden will test the government’s ability to suppress speech in the name of fighting ‘misinformation’

Ernest Ramirez, a car-wash technician in a small, south Texas town, led a simple but fulfilling life with his son, Ernesto Junior. Junior was a “wonderful child, full of smiles.” Ramirez had raised his son alone; he’d never known his own father and sought to provide Junior with the paternal love he had missed. A talented baseball player, Junior dreamed of playing professionally. The two lived paycheck to paycheck but were happy because, as Ramirez put it, they had each other.

Then, on April 19, 2021, 16-year-old Junior—who had no previous health problems—received the first dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. Five days later, the young athlete collapsed while running. By the time the elder Ramirez arrived at the hospital, having been told he could not ride in the ambulance with his son, Junior was dead.

According to the autopsy report, the cause of Junior’s death was an “enlarged heart.” Upon receiving the news, Ramirez lost all desire to go on living. But after the initial shock subsided, Ramirez decided to travel and speak about Junior’s fate, in hopes that he could help other families avoid similar tragedies.

That plan proved more difficult than Ramirez anticipated. In September 2021, GoFundMe removed an account he had opened to raise money for a trip to the nation’s capital to share his son’s story. “The content of your fundraiser falls under our ‘Prohibited Conduct’ section,” the company’s email explained. Ramirez lost the donations he had thus far received. Two months later, Twitter took down a photograph Ramirez had posted depicting him standing beside Junior’s open casket, along with the caption “My good byes to my Baby Boy” followed by three brokenheart emojis. Even a father’s simple expression of grief was apparently forbidden by the social media platform’s government-supported censorship regime.

Around that time, Ramirez met Brianne Dressen, a 40-year-old woman who had volunteered for the AstraZeneca vaccine trials and suffered a severe adverse reaction diagnosed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as “post-vaccine neuropathy.” Her varied and acute symptoms at times required use of a wheelchair and drastically curtailed her ability to participate in her young children’s lives.

For a time after her diagnosis, Dressen fell into a severe depression. However, during the spring of 2021, she discovered online support groups for vaccine-injured individuals and their family members. Connecting to others who understood her plight greatly improved her outlook on life, and she began serving as an administrator of several of the groups.

But in July 2021, less than 24 hours after Dressen participated in a press conference with U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Facebook shut down one support group’s account. Though participants had merely discussed their often-harrowing personal experiences and shared medical treatments that they found helpful, Facebook claimed they were spreading harmful “misinformation” that warranted the group’s removal.

The cascade of shutdowns of support groups and accounts belonging to the vaccine injured on Facebook and other social media platforms continues to this day. Ramirez, Dressen, and others learned that when their accounts weren’t suspended or removed, they were shadow-banned—meaning that the platforms’ algorithms buried their posts so that they were rarely, if ever, viewable, even to like-minded individuals facing similar health problems. In Dressen’s words: “The constant threat of having our groups shut down and our connections pulled apart left me and many other members and leaders frozen, unable to communicate and connect with those who needed our help the most. We spent more time managing the chaos of the censorship algorithms that continued to evolve, than we did actually helping people through the trauma of their injuries.”

The obstacles encountered by Ramirez, Dressen, and thousands of other individuals with similar experiences and opinions were in no way coincidental or accidental. Nor were they the result of a series of errors in judgment made by low-level employees of social media platforms. Rather, they were the products of concerted efforts at the highest levels of the American government to ensure that individuals with opposing viewpoints could not be heard, contrary to the guarantees made to every American citizen in the Bill of Rights. One purpose of these unconstitutional actions to violate the rights of American citizens was political gain.

As COVID-19 inoculations became widely available to the American public, the Biden White House came to view vaccine hesitancy as a significant political problem. Beginning in spring 2021, the administration explicitly and publicly blamed social media platforms for vaccine refusal: By failing to censor “misinformation” about the vaccines, the president infamously alleged, tech companies were effectively “killing people.” The president’s incendiary accusation was accompanied by threats of regulatory or other legal action (should the companies refuse to comply) from various high-ranking members of the administration, including former White House Press Secretary Jennifer Psaki, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Psaki boasted that government officials were in regular touch with social media platforms, telling them what and in some cases even whom to censor.

Continue reading “”

The Louisville Shooter’s Inconvenient Social Media Being Conveniently Scrubbed

“Another Democrat killer,” Sebastian Gorka tweeted Monday as some of the Louisville shooter’s social media accounts came under scrutiny.

With credit to someone named Andy S., Gorka reposted the killer’s “anti-Trump and pro-lockdown posts on a Reddit under an account with the same name at his already nuked Twitter account.”

Louisville Shooter

The killer locked down his Twitter account “a bit back,” according to another user who claims “he RT’d and followed other stuff that’s more antifa/far left such as Vaush & antifa doxxing blog left coast right watch.” The amateur sleuth summed up the killer’s Twitter feed as “AOC fan, anti-trump, NRA hater, etc.”

The correct Twitter account seems to be “sturg__” and not the “csturg41” handle he used on Reddit and Instagram.

There’s nothing on the killer’s Reddit more recent than four months ago, but at least some of the lefty stuff he posted can still be seen here and here. Mostly, his Reddit is filled with sports, videogames, complaints about women, and parental issues.

But what was he posting to his more public accounts? We might never know.

UPDATE: Sure enough, Reddit scrubbed the csturg41 account just as I was wrapping up this column. Soon he’ll be as invisible as the Nashville trans shooter’s manifesto.

ASIDE: As a matter of personal policy, I don’t mention the names of mass shooters. Whatever fame/ignominy they seek in this life or the next, they won’t get any help from me. Remember their victims instead, please.

“Most of [the killer’s] accounts have been wiped,” according to Twitter user Darth Crypto. “I found songs he liked on SoundCloud, High School basketball pictures, family members, a Pokemon obsession, but nothing else.”

That matches what little I’ve been able to dig up. He also seems to have been active on a site called loveforquotes.com, but it’s been doing nothing but returning server errors when I try to dig into the “csturg41” links.

The killer also had an Instagram account, which has also been nuked. Nevertheless, at least one screencap survives, including threats made Monday morning right before the massacre.

Intel Point Alert posted that he “reportedly texted friend before shooting saying he was feeling suicidal and ‘would shoot up the bank’.”

The 25-year-old killer’s LinkedIn profile is still active and shows the obligatory “he/him” preferred pronouns. (No link because it displays his name.)

This is a developing story and I’ll post more as I’m able to find it — assuming there’s anything left to find.

I think Crenshaw is trying to regain some of the respect he lost when he was off advocating Red Flag laws.

USA Today actually frames scope of mass shootings correctly

When it comes to framing the discussion around mass shootings, USA Today has a, well, let’s call it a spotty track record. After all, they’re the same ones who thought the chainsaw bayonet was an actual, common thing that people attach to their AR-15s.

That doesn’t help their credibility in the least.

Yet it seems they’re trying to do better. For example, a recent story actually gets a few things right with regard to the awful tragedy of children being killed by gunshots. Basically, school shootings aren’t as big of an issue as many think.

More than two-thirds of parents worry a shooting could happen at their children’s school, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey. But home is a far more dangerous place for kids.

In the five years ending in 2022, at least 866 kids ages 17 and younger were shot in domestic violence incidents, according to an analysis by The Trace of data from the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive; 621 of them died. In that same time frame, 268 children were shot at school, 75 of them fatally, according to an analysis of data from the CHDS School Shooting Safety Compendium, a federally funded tracker launched after the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, in 2018.

All told, three times as many children were shot in domestic violence incidents as in school shootings and eight times as many died. The majority of those children were intentionally shot by a parent, stepparent or guardian – the very people expected to protect them.

Now, don’t think this is a pro-gun or even gun-neutral article. The author works for The Trace, so you know it’s still anti-gun.

However, the truth of the matter is that whole mass shootings get a lot of attention, they’re a small fraction of the violence that can claim a life.

That applies to kids as well.

Where the author doesn’t really step up, though, is in telling you there are 73.6 million children in the United States.

While the loss of any child is tragic, the truth is that those numbers above are for a five-year span, so if you break it down annually, things look different.

Take these domestic shootings, for example. That’s 173.2 per year.

According to the CDC, in 2020, 607 kids were killed in car accidents. That puts those numbers in stark contrast.

None of this is to say that we don’t have an issue. The idea of any parent or guardian killing the child in their charge is troubling, to say the least. It’s representative of a very real problem, one we need to address as a nation in some way, shape, or form.

However, additional gun regulations–something the author does seem to favor later in the piece–aren’t likely to keep children alive. After all, a violent parent or guardian has alternatives for taking a child’s life if that’s what they want to do.

It makes more sense to deal with this at the source in the first place by addressing the reasons for domestic violence. Undermine that and you have nothing to worry about going forward.

Gaslighting: ‘Crazy Conspiracy Theories’ Proven to be True This Year

The Left frequently uses the term “conspiracy theorist” to smear and belittle anyone who questions the agenda of the Democrats or the narratives being pushed by the allies in the corporate media.

Over time, it’s become clear to many that a so-called “conspiracy theory” is simply information that conflicts with or disputes the Left’s agenda.

However, several “conspiracy theories” have been proven to be actual facts in 2023 already.

Here is a selection of stories that have now been proven to be true but were previously suppressed by the media and written off as “conspiracy theories.”

Continue reading “”

Anti-gunners need to face reality on gun manufacturer

The firearm community consists of two primary groups: The gun owners and the gun manufacturers and sellers. The firearm industry provides the goods and services we all need in order to enjoy our Second Amendment rights.
Going after gun owners is, typically, a losing strategy for anti-gunners. It doesn’t take much to show that gun owners are law-abiding folks and that if we were all dangerous, with over 400 million guns in private hands, violent crime would be much worse.
So, they’ve long gone after gun stores, but they haven’t exactly left gun manufacturers alone.
In fact, a recent op-ed tries to blame them for a whole lot.
We often talk about where and how weapons are purchased — but rarely where and how they are manufactured. These realities challenge the conventional way we talk about guns in terms of a “culture war” between red and blue states.
For example, the blue states of Massachusetts and Connecticut have some of the strictest regulations on firearms carrying and possession. But they are also major sites of gun manufacturing in this country. The weapons used in the 2018 Parkland shooting, for example, were manufactured by Smith and Wesson, a gun manufacturer based in Massachusetts.
The deeper and bigger point is that the U.S. is the world’s principal supplier of weapons.
The U.S. weapons industry makes both heavy weapons like military aircraft, bombs, and missiles, and small arms like rifles and handguns. As of 2021, over 40 percent of the world’s exported arms came from the United States — many of them manufactured in deep blue states.
Blue states with strict gun laws often suffer gun violence when weapons are trafficked in from red states with looser gun laws. Similarly, many countries surrounding the U.S. with high rates of gun violence, like Mexico, obtain guns both legally and illegally from this country.
With no system to effectively control and track who ends up with those guns, these weapons are often obtained by military units or police that have committed human rights abuses or who work with criminal groups.
In other words, literally every sin ever committed with a gun rests on the gun manufacturers’ heads.
However, I’m going to clue the writers–there are two of them, so they’re clearly twice as ignorant–on a few facts about how gun distribution works in this country.
First, let’s talk about domestic gun sales.
The gun manufacturer builds a given firearm and then sells it. It’s true that, in theory, anyone can buy that gun and have it shipped to pretty much any city in the nation…to a point.
The weapon needs to first be legal in that state, for one thing. An AR-15 that’s legal in Georgia isn’t legal in Massachusetts, so local laws need to be obeyed.
Second, that gun must go to someone with the proper licensing. Since most people don’t have an FFL, they are generally shipped to a gun store, which then conducts all the required background checks and whatnot. As such, the gun manufacturer can ship it out trusting that everything required will be done.
Yet after it leaves the store, they have absolutely no control over what happens. That customer could have the gun stolen or he could just hand it off to someone else. They have no say.
Then the writers talk about atrocities abroad as if companies like Colt are to blame.
Except, those companies can’t just export guns because someone cut them a check. Due to federal law, weapons exports must be approved by the State Department. Again, Colt can’t ship a bunch of M-4s somewhere just because they want to. They need government approval to do so lawfully.
Once they’re sent, the gun manufacturers are, once again, powerless to do anything about what happens with those weapons.
See, our intrepid authors are convinced that these gun makers are the scum of the Earth, but they can’t seem to grok that they’re ruled by numerous regulations other industries simply don’t have to deal with. They couldn’t be the merchants of death they’re painted as even if they wanted.
Frankly, these two should be embarrassed by what they wrote and the publication that printed it should be embarrassed as well. What we have here is a screed dictated by ignorance with a few links thrown it to make it look like they did their research.
They should actually try doing some next time.

Seems? Nay it is. I know not ‘seems’.

Op-ed writer seems to misunderstand data on guns

One reason I cannot be accused of living in a pro-gun echo chamber is that I have to ready a lot of anti-gun op-eds in the course of my work here. I know all the arguments they’re going to make and where they’re coming from because I read their words on a daily basis.

But when it comes to guns, many just don’t understand the topic as well as they’d like to think.

They regurgitate talking points and used biased data from gun control groups and pretend that they’re well-versed on the topic.

However, a writer with the Philadelphia Tribune took the discussion of gun control in a bizarre direction.

While new gun control laws such as strengthening background checks for gun buyers and raising the age to purchase a firearm to 21 are needed, it would be misleading to suggest new gun laws alone will reduce gun violence.

That’s because most gun crimes are committed by those who illegally possess guns, according to a study of inmates in federal and state prisons, conducted by Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.

Since most violent crimes are not committed by legal gun owners and there is little chance of significant new gun laws passing anytime soon in the state Legislature or Congress, local officials must focus on cracking down on illegal gun possession.

More effective policing, vigorous prosecution and stricter sentencing of violent criminals using illegally obtained weapons will be needed to reduce crime.

The last three paragraphs look pretty sensible. The author is right, for example, that most criminals possess their firearms illegally. He’s right that there’s little chance new gun laws will pass anytime soon. While I’m not sure that increased enforcement of current gun laws will produce the results he desires, I can at least accept that’s a potentially viable path.

By his own words, though, lawful gun owners aren’t the problem, so why should we pass more gun control laws in the first place?

Even if we dismiss the fact that this is a constitutionally protected right we’re talking about here, just what reason would we have to restrict who can buy guns by age even further than we already do or increase background checks?

Perhaps the author is concerned about the 647 “mass shootings” reported by Gun Violence Archive. If so, he should be aware that most of those were criminals shooting people in the first place, not 19-year-olds buying AR-15s and shooting up schools. Gun Violence Archive doesn’t differentiate between gang warfare and active shooters killing everyone in a crowded movie theater, for example, so the vast majority of those shootings aren’t what people think of when they hear the term “mass shooting.”

Either way, the author is somehow failing to comprehend the information clearly in front of him.

Honestly, I’m amazed he finished the piece, what with the cognitive dissonance that had to be tearing at him. Or, maybe he just didn’t understand it enough to feel such a thing.

Either way, he discredits his own claim that more gun control laws should be passed and it sure looks like he knows it.

What AP calls ‘turmoil,’ we call ‘about time’

The Associated Press, or AP, is supposed to be unbiased, though we’ve all seen countless examples of them being anything but.

That’s especially true regarding matters pertaining to the Second Amendment.

These days, the right to keep and bear arms may have a firmer foundation on which to rest following the Bruen decision. It’s rather clear that there can be no total gun ban and that any restriction has to conform to a particular framework that won’t be easy for any law.

It seems this has led to what the AP calls “turmoil” in the courts.

A landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment is upending gun laws across the country, dividing judges and sowing confusion over what firearm restrictions can remain on the books.

The high court’s ruling that set new standards for evaluating gun laws left open many questions, experts say, resulting in an increasing number of conflicting decisions as lower court judges struggle to figure out how to apply it.

The Supreme Court’s so-called Bruen decision changed the test that lower courts had long used for evaluating challenges to firearm restrictions. Judges should no longer consider whether the law serves public interests like enhancing public safety, the justices said.

Under the Supreme Court’s new test, the government that wants to uphold a gun restriction must look back into history to show it is consistent with the country’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Courts in recent months have declared unconstitutional federal laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers,felony defendants and people who use marijuana. Judges have shot down a federal ban on possessing guns with serial numbers removed and gun restrictions for young adults in Texas and have blocked the enforcement of Delaware’s ban on the possession of homemade “ghost guns.”

In several instances, judges looking at the same laws have come down on opposite sides on whether they are constitutional in the wake of the conservative Supreme Court majority’s ruling. The legal turmoil caused by the first major gun ruling in a decade will likely force the Supreme Court to step in again soon to provide more guidance for judges.

“There’s confusion and disarray in the lower courts because not only are they not reaching the same conclusions, they’re just applying different methods or applying Bruen’s method differently,” said Jacob Charles, a professor at Pepperdine University’s law school who focuses on firearms law.

Sure, there’s a bit of confusion. The Bruen decision has set a stage most courts have never seen before. They now have to consider whether the Founders would have approved of such a law by looking at whether or not they approved of something similar during their own time.

But is it really a bad thing?

The only downside is that it’s taken us this long to get to this point. While the AP is apparently concerned that the status quo has been upturned, I’m more upset that the status quo was allowed to become the status quo in the first place.

It’s just insane that it came to this.

Yet here we are. We now have an opportunity to right the ship and put the onus on things back where they were. No longer can courts just claim it’s in the government’s interest to restrict our rights – something they’d never say about the First or Fourth Amendments, it should be remembered – but must instead look at the matter objectively and compare it to historical precedent.

The AP may lament this “turmoil,” but I only lament that we didn’t have this upheaval a long time ago.

NPR talks about “major takeaways” from ATF report

The ATF has always at least felt politicized to gun owners. After all, it’s a federal agency that perpetually seems dedicated to restricting our rights. At no point is there any illustration that the agency actually wants to help gun owners or benefit them in any way.

Lately, though, things were turned up to 11.

But data is, at least in theory, just data. While it can be manipulated in various ways, there’s often some degree of usefulness to it.

Leave it to NPR to not just look at it, but try to present it in the most heavily biased way possible.

Stolen guns, untraceable weapons and other deadly devices are becoming more prevalent in U.S. gun crimes, new federal data shows.

Last week, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives released an expansive federal report on guns used in crimes in two decades, providing the public with more detail about stolen firearms and gun trafficking.

The data stretches from 2017 and 2021. During that period, local police reported a shrinking turnaround time for a legally purchased gun to be used in a crime. It also provides insight into the spike in ghost guns and conversion devices.

ATF Director Steven M. Dettelbach wrote that the findings offer “strategic intelligence” for policy makers, law enforcement and researchers to reduce gun violence.

Gun policy experts have said that the release of this data is a big step in better understanding gun crime in the U.S., and can better educate policymakers on the need to regulate several areas of the gun industry.

Because it’s always about regulation, isn’t it.

It should be noted that while this is posted on NPR’s website there’s no actual link to the ATF’s report. Nor does there appear to be a press release on the ATF’s website.

Interesting.

So what about these takeaways in question? Well, it’s interesting in how little framing we’ve got.

Legally purchased firearms are being used in crimes sooner than ever

The ATF found that 54% of traced crime guns were recovered by law enforcement more than three years after their purchase. Those guns were legally purchased, but were later used in crimes, the report indicated.

“Crime guns may change hands a number of times after that first retail sale, and some of those transactions may be a theft or violate one or more regulations on firearm commerce,” the ATF’s report reflected.

“We’ve had record gun sales in the United States, particularly in and around the pandemic, in 2020 and 2021. And the vast majority of those guns are, of course, purchased by law abiding citizens and with no intent to commit crime,” James Densley, a sociologist with the Violence Project, said. In addition to tracking mass shootings with the Violence Project, Densley also studies everyday gun violence and homicide.

“But what we know is from the large numbers of gun sales, there are lots of ways that legal guns end up in the hands of prohibited persons.”

OK, but what’s not mentioned is how much the time has reduced. Are we talking years earlier or mere days? That’s some important information. After all, if the time dropped from 20 years to three, then something sure does seem wonky. If it goes from 3.2 years to 3.1 years, not so much.

That’s far from the only takeaway, though. For example, they note more than a million guns are stolen, which is unfortunate to say the least. Stolen guns are a huge problem and something lawful gun owners want to help mitigate as best they can.

After all, if my guns get stolen, not only am I deprived of my property but someone else might be hurt with one.

NPR also brings up the ATF’s great boogieman, “ghost guns.”

Privately made firearms, also called “ghost guns,” and their involvement in crime “is an emerging issue,” the ATF said in its analysis. Still, law enforcement agencies are just beginning to establish uniform training on how to recognize, identify, and report ghost guns.

The number of suspected ghost guns recovered by law enforcement agencies and sent to the ATF for tracing and tracking “increased by 1,083% from 2017 (1,629) to 2021 (19,273).” This indicates, for one thing, that these ghost guns are increasingly being used to commit crimes, the ATF concludes.

Now, let’s be clear, that is a significant increase over such a short stretch of time.

However, the better question is what percentage of total guns sent for tracing did unserialized firearms account for from year to year.

Let’s remember that 2020 and 2021 were particularly violent years. It’s entirely likely that at least some of that increase was really just because of the increase in violent crime as a whole.

I suspect that if we looked at those numbers, the difference wouldn’t seem so stark.

Yet despite that, it does look like a lot more so-called ghost guns are being sent to the ATF for tracing. I can’t help but note, however, that until the media started freaking out over homemade firearms, remarkably few people were using them for criminal activity.

That didn’t make it in this report, I’m sure.

Look, I could go through the whole thing, but all we have is biased reporting of what the ATF’s report said and we know how that goes. Absolutely none of it changes the fact that our rights are what they are and that gun control laws uniformly fail to prevent criminals from arming themselves.

As such, the report was mostly a waste of taxpayer dollars.

In that way, it’s much like the ATF itself.

Rep. Lauren Boebert Introduces Act to Require DOJ to Report All Social Media Company Payments

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) introduced the Exposing Lewd Outlays for Social Networking Companies (ELON) Act, which would require the Department of Justice (DOJ) to report the money sent to social media companies.

ELON Act would require the DOJ to submit to Congress all payments made to social media companies since January 1, 2015. She added that the bill would also require “a report from all agencies on federal dollars sent to big tech companies” and place a one-year hold on additional spending.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Boebert’s bill follows recent revelations that the FBI was paying Twitter the administration costs of processing its requests and for other matters.

“Big Tech is in bed with the FBI and other agencies to the point where Congress can’t tell where one ends and the other begins,” Boebert said, speaking to Fox News. “The millions of dollars sent to  that we know of during an election year when they were at the same time censoring the Hunter Biden laptop from hell, is incredibly concerning.”

“We must expose the incestuous relationship between Big Tech and the federal government,” Boebert said. “My bill does exactly that.”

The bill already has several Republican co-sponsors, including ’s Anna Paulina Luna and Matt Gaetz, Arizona’s Paul Gosar, Troy Nehls from , Eric Burlison from Missouri, and Indiana’s Mary Miller.

AP less than thrilled over Missouri gun bill’s defeat

When somewhere like the AP or any news organization starts talking about gun control stories, there’s always some level of poor understanding involved. That’s almost to be expected. After all, even under the most charitable interpretation of what’s going on, the reporters covering these stories and commentators discussing them aren’t exactly experts on firearms.

So, it’s not shocking they’d get some things wrong here and there.

Yet a recent story by the AP about a gun control measure being voted down in Missouri raises more questions than it can possibly answer.

The Republican-led House in Missouri on Wednesday voted against a proposal to ban minors from openly carrying firearms without adult supervision in public.

The proposal failed by a 104-39 vote, with only one Republican state representative voting in support of it.

Democratic state Rep. Donna Baringer told the Associated Press that police in her district were concerned about “14-year-olds walking down the middle of the street in the city of St. Louis carrying AR-15s,” and are demanding change.

“Now they have been emboldened, and they are walking around with them,” Baringer said regarding concealed carry by children in Missouri. “Until they actually brandish them, and brandish them with intent, our police officers’ hands are handcuffed.”

Now, to start off with, it seems pretty straightforward. A bill banning minors from carrying openly without adult supervision is something that even many gun rights advocates might consider supporting. Many won’t, though, and mostly because such a law is way too broad. Many of us went hunting on our own as kids and such a measure may restrict one’s ability to do that.

But then things get wonky with where the AP goes next.

Missouri lawmakers in 2017 repealed concealed carry requirements in most situations.

What does that have to do with anything?

Open carry and concealed carry are very different things, though neither should be restricted. What does a 2017 concealed carry measure have to do with a refusal to pass a blanket prohibition on teens carrying firearms without an adult right there with them?

Nothing.

Then again, this is the AP. There’s absolutely no reason they wouldn’t mention such a thing, likely in hopes of people conflating the two.

However, there are reasons why this bill didn’t go anywhere, and it had nothing to do with some strong desire to see 14-year-olds marching down the streets of St. Louis with AR-15s.

Not that I’d legitimately expect there to be any significant reporting on just why that is.

After all, in that entire piece, there’s exactly one quote from anyone who opposed the bill, despite the story being about the measure’s defeat. Instead, it’s all about how hard it is to pass gun control in Missouri.

And the AP thinks we still believe they’re unbiased? That’s downright hilarious.

Look, if parents are doing their job, the chances of Junior carrying a gun openly in public without their permission is effectively nil. It’s just not going to happen. If they’re not going their job, there’s no law in the world that will stop it from happening. That’s just the hard facts of life.

Too bad the AP didn’t mention that, either.

Congress is set to expose what may be the largest censorship system in U.S. history.

This coming week a new House select subcommittee will hold its first hearing on the FBI and the possible “weaponization” of government agencies. A variety of such controversies have contributed to plunging public trust in government and the FBI in particular.

The role of the FBI in prior scandals will remain a point of heated debate in Congress. However, members of both parties should be able to agree on the need to investigate one of the most serious allegations: Censorship by surrogate.

Many of the allegations of FBI bias are worthy of investigation. Some of those allegations are problems of personnel who can be removed. But a far more menacing problem has emerged in recent months with the release of information from Twitter.

The “Twitter files” revealed an FBI operation to monitor and censor social media content — an effort so overwhelming and intrusive that Twitter staff at one point complained internally that “they are probing & pushing everywhere.” The reports have indicated that dozens of FBI employees worked on the identification and removal of material on a wide range of subjects and that Twitter largely carried out their requests.

Nor was it just the FBI, apparently. Emails reveal FBI figures like a San Francisco assistant special agent in charge asking Twitter executives to “invite an OGA” (or “Other Government Organization”) to an upcoming meeting. A week later, Stacia Cardille, a senior Twitter legal executive, indicated the OGA was the CIA, an agency under strict limits regarding domestic activities.

Twitter’s own ranks included dozens of ex-FBI agents and executives, including James Baker, who featured greatly in prior FBI instances of alleged bias.

The Twitter files also show various FBI offices monitoring social media and flagging “misleading” information on various subjects.

The dozens of disclosed emails are only a fraction of Twitter’s files and do not include still-undisclosed but apparent government coordination with Facebook and other social media companies. Much of that work apparently was done through the multi-agency Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF), which operated secretly it seems to censor citizens.

Ironically, during the outcry over establishing a Disinformation Governance Board at the Department of Homeland Security, Biden administration officials had to have known they already were employing an extensive censorship system. When the administration finally relented and disbanded the disinformation board, that censorship work appears to have continued unimpeded through the FITF and agency censors.

According to reports, one email in August 2022 sent “long lists of newspapers, tweets or YouTube videos” deemed to be voicing “anti-Ukraine narratives.” Even satirical and comedy sites reportedly were pegged by the social media police.

What is most striking is that the FBI was not responding to false claims about its operations. Instead, these censorship demands were the result of policing “misinformation” and “disinformation” on subjects ranging from political corruption to elections.

Some apologists continue to defend this process, saying the FBI was only objecting to disinformation the way that citizens did on Twitter. That is not true; the government reportedly used back channels and regular meetings to flag unacceptable statements. Indeed, even if it were true, many things are more dangerous when done by government. When your neighbor attacks your opinion, it is just the crank next door. But when it is your government on the attack, it is far more threatening and stigmatizing.

Even if this operation did not cross the constitutional line, there are ample reasons why a democracy does not want the government in the business of targeting those whom it views as misleading or misinforming the public. While the FBI has every reason to pursue criminal fraud, this operation appears to have targeted speech it deemed harmful to political or social discourse.

For years, many politicians and pundits have dismissed free-speech concerns by noting that the First Amendment only applies to the government. So long as corporations do the censoring, they contend, it is not a free-speech problem.

This obviously is wrong on several fronts.

The First Amendment is not the exclusive measure of free speech. Corporate censorship of political commentaries or news stories are denials of free speech that harm our democratic system.

Second, this is a First Amendment violation. The Twitter files have substantiated long-standing concerns over “censorship by surrogate” or proxy. As with other amendments like the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches or seizures, the government cannot use private agents to do indirectly what it cannot do directly. Just as a police officer cannot direct a security guard to break into an apartment and conduct a search, the FBI cannot use Twitter to censor Americans.

To be fair, there were occasions when Twitter reportedly balked at government demands for raw political censorship — in one case, a demand by Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Cal.) led a frustrated Twitter censor to object that “We don’t do this.”

Nevertheless, Twitter’s management certainly now seems to admit that the company worked as an agent of the FBI and carried out most demands for social media suspensions, removals or blocks of individuals. At the same time, the FBI pushed for closer collaboration on content removal.

We do not know the full extent of this operation or its impact, but Congress should want to know if the FBI and other agencies created a system of censorship-by-surrogate. The only reason we now have Twitter’s previously secret communications is because an eccentric billionaire bought the company.

The broader effort with other companies could well constitute the largest censorship program ever run by the government — a system designed to escape both public and judicial scrutiny. It also shows how it is no longer necessary to have a “Ministry of Information” to maintain a state media: You can have an effective state media by consent rather than by coercion or control.

The FBI’s response to disclosure of these long-secret communications is particularly chilling. When some critics denounced it as raw censorship, the FBI accused them of being “conspiracy theorists … feeding the American public misinformation.” So, criticism of the FBI’s work to censor citizens resulted in an official statement denouncing those citizens.

None of these denials or attacks succeed, however. The public understands the threat and strongly supports an investigation into the FBI’s role in censoring social media. Despite the push for censorship by some politicians and pundits, most Americans still want free-speech protections. It is in our DNA.

This country was founded on deep commitments to free speech and limited government — and that constitutional tradition is no conspiracy theory.

Exclusive: Fox News Executives Censor Tucker Carlson in Order to Protect Pfizer

The first line of Tucker Carlson’s monologue last night was, “How powerful exactly are the big pharmaceutical companies in this country?”

It turns out the answer is: powerful enough to censor Tucker Carlson, the #1 most watched show on cable news.

Thank you for reading Karlstack. This post is public so feel free to share it.

The censored story in question is this bombshell from Project Veritas that broke Wednesday evening, in which their hidden camera team captures a Pfizer executive named Jordan Walker — the Director of Research & Development Strategic Operations, just 3 rungs down from the CEO on their org chart — bragging about how Pfizer is conducting gain of function research on the Covid virus (he coyly refers to it not as “gain of function”, but “directed evolution”, wink wink).

Twitter avatar for @Project_Veritas

Project Veritas @Project_Veritas
BREAKING: @pfizer Exploring “Mutating” COVID-19 Virus For New Vaccines “Don’t tell anyone this…There is a risk…have to be very controlled to make sure this virus you mutate doesn’t create something…the way that the virus started in Wuhan, to be honest.” #DirectedEvolution

12:30 AM ∙ Jan 26, 2023

77,308Retweets
Image

This story was promptly censored by Google.

Twitter avatar for @DrEliDavid

Dr. Eli David @DrEliDavid
.@Project_Veritas exposed what’s probably the most important story on Pfizer and Covid. But if you Google it, you get this:
Image

7:45 AM ∙ Jan 26, 2023

1,910Retweets

None of the cable news anchors at any network reported on it, not even at Fox.

Except for one, Tucker Carlson.

Here is the 16-minute long monologue, broken up into 2 parts:

When the episode was uploaded to Fox Nation this morning, however, the monologue was less than 4 minutes long. Fox Nation is Fox’s subscription video service that uploads every episode after it airs.

Fox Nation is paywalled, so you can’t check yourself, but here is a screenshot showing the first guest appearing at the 4:02 mark. In contrast, in the full monologue, this guest appears at the 16:00 minute mark.

Where did those missing 12 minutes go?

Continue reading “”

The nomenklatura is real. It sprang to life with the first law Congress passed that restricted the people and exempted goobermint.

American Nomenklatura.

A few weeks after Elon Musk formally acquired Twitter in October 2022, a senior official at the company who quit in the wake of Musk’s arrival took to the New York Times to pour cold water on Musk’s vision for the social-media platform. Yoel Roth, whose title had been Head of Trust and Safety, sought to assure his fellow progressives. Roth wrote that even if Musk wanted to remove the web of content-moderation rules and procedures Roth had helped create and enforce, the tech billionaire would be unable to achieve his aim. “The moderating influences of advertisers, regulators and, most critically of all, app stores may be welcome for those of us hoping to avoid an escalation in the volume of dangerous speech online,” he wrote.

What Roth meant was this: No Internet platform is an island, and Musk simply didn’t have the power to do what he wanted despite his 100 percent ownership of the social-media platform. It wasn’t merely that Musk would have to contend with Twitter’s progressive workforce, which believes that some political speech is so awful that it should be throttled or banned. He would also come into conflict with European regulators, the Federal Trade Commission, and Congress, all of whom also seek to limit what can be said online. And what about the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, a trade organization of some of the world’s biggest consumer brands that advocates for “online safety”—a euphemism for protecting social-media users from accounts that may offend, harass, or trigger them?

He would also be dogged by advocacy groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, which have found a new and lucrative mission monitoring social-media platforms for hate speech. They work hand in hand with elite journalists and think tankers, who have taken to tracking the spread of misinformation and disinformation online. In Washington, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security have personnel whose job it is to alert social-media companies to foreign propaganda and terrorism. In Atlanta, the Centers for Disease Control seeks to quarantine dangerous information that might lead Americans to forgo masks or vaccine boosters. And perhaps most important, there are other Silicon Valley giants—Apple and Google—that provide the digital storefronts or app stores that Twitter needs to update their software and continue to run its service.

Call it the “content-moderation industrial complex.” In just a few short years, this nomenklatura has come to constitute an implicit ruling class on the Internet, one that collectively determines what information and news sources the rest of us should see on major platforms. Talk about “free speech” and “the First Amendment” may actually be beside the point here. The Twitter that Musk bought was part of a larger machine—one that attempts to shape conversations online by amplifying, muzzling, and occasionally banning participants who run afoul of its dogma.

The existence of this nomenklatura has been known for a few years. But thanks to Musk and his decision to make Twitter’s internal communications and policies available to journalists Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, and others, more detail is now known on why and how this elite endeavors to protect us from all manner of wrongthink.

Continue reading “”

Reporter Hits Gavin Newsom With Reality Check After Dangerous 2A Comments

We’ve seen it all too often where after a mass shooting the media and Democrats immediately begin calling for more restrictions on gun rights, and demonizing the Second Amendment and those who support it.

Like clockwork, that exact scenario played out over the weekend and into Monday in the aftermath of the tragic mass shooting that happened during a Lunar New Year celebration in Monterey Park, California Saturday night which saw the Asian-American gunman kill eleven and injure nine.

But in a pretty surprising and rare display of actual journalism, CBS Evening News anchor Norah O’Donnell pushed back on an anti-2A claim made by California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who she interviewed on Monday to get his thoughts on the Monterey Park tragedy:

“Nothing about this is surprising. Everything about this is infuriating,” he told “CBS Evening News” anchor and managing editor Norah O’Donnell on Monday. “The Second Amendment is becoming a suicide pact.”

Newsom clarified that he has “no ideological opposition” against people who “responsibly” own guns and get background checks and training on how to use them.

The reason Newsom “clarified” his comments to O’Donnell was because right after he called the Second Amendment a “suicide pact,” something he’s said before, she informed him that there are “many people in this country that support the Second Amendment and are lawful gun owners.”

I was so shocked to see this come from the mouth of someone in the mainstream media that I had to do a double take at first to make sure the clip was real and not something that was being misinterpreted. But sure enough, that’s exactly what she said.

O’Donnell was, of course, exactly right. If we didn’t have such an activist media when it comes to issues like gun rights we’d see a lot more step in like she did and point out for the record that the vast majority of Second Amendment proponents are law-abiding citizens who support having the Constitutional right so they can protect themselves and their families – and others, potentially, depending on the situation – from someone who could try to harm them.

O’Donnell also hit back at Newsom over the report that the gunman “used a modified pistol with a high-capacity magazine illegal in California.” Newsom didn’t have any good answer for it:

When asked how the gunman was able to get the weapon, Newsom responded “we will figure it out,” adding, “That’s going to happen. You got to enforce laws. Things fall through the cracks, but it doesn’t mean you give up.”

Newsom mentioned the role of mental health in mass shootings, but he singled out gun access as a factor exacerbating the problem.

Not surprisingly, what he left out was that a bad guy who wants a gun doesn’t care about gun laws obviously and will go about getting their guns and ammo regardless of how strict a state’s gun laws are. This is exactly why defenders of the Second Amendment say the government shouldn’t make it harder for law-abiding citizens to obtain one, because in the end it’s the people who follow the law who ultimately end up paying the price.

Gun Wars: An Interview with Larry Correia

Larry Correia is a bestselling author of thriller SF/fantasy fiction.  He’s also a gun enthusiast.  Now he’s written a nonfiction work on gun rights and the Second Amendment.  I read an advance copy and found myself flying through the pages – it’s super-interesting and engaging, even to someone like me who’s been a shooter and gun-rights supporter and part of this world for many years.   The book is In Defense of the Second Amendment, and it comes out on Tuesday.

I thought it would be nice to ask him some questions, which are featured below. As usual, the article is free to everyone, but comments are limited to paid subscribers.

Continue reading “”