Category: Enemies Domestic

Age of Rage: UChicago Report Finds 30 Million American View Violence as Justified to Keep Trump From Power

The chilling answer is found in a new report out of the University of Chicago showing that almost 12 percent of the population, representing 30 million people, believe that violence is warranted to prevent Trump from assuming the presidency. That is almost double the number who believe that violence is warranted to ensure that Trump does become president.

As discussed in The Guardian, the Chicago Project on Security & Threats survey found many Americans are embracing violence as an option for political change.

We have watched as rage has risen in the country. It is often celebrated by one side or the other. I previously discussed how a scene like the recent confrontation on the floor of the Tennessee House perfectly captured our “age of rage.” Protesters filled the capitol building to protest the failure to pass gun-control legislation. Three Democratic state representatives — Justin Jones from Nashville, Justin Pearson from Memphis, and Gloria Johnson of Knoxville — were unwilling to yield to the majority. They disrupted the floor proceedings with a bullhorn and screaming at their colleagues.

It is a scene familiar to many of us in academia, where events are regularly canceled by those who shout down others.

The three members yelled “No action, no peace” and “Power to the people” as their colleagues objected to their stopping the legislative process. Undeterred, the three refused to allow “business as usual” to continue.

Nobel Laureate Albert Camus once said, “Insurrection is certainly not the sum total of human experience but … it is our historic reality.” Those words came to mind when Tennessee’s House of Representatives expelled two members accused of disrupting legislative proceedings in what some called an “insurrection” or a “mutiny.”

Only a few days before the Tennessee House floor fight, a confrontation occurred off the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in Washington which captured perfectly this new political reality.

Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) was shown on videotape screaming about gun control in the Capitol as his colleagues left the floor following a vote. Various Democratic members, including former House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), tried to calm Bowman. However, when Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) asked Bowman to stop yelling, Bowman shouted back: “I was screaming before you interrupted me” — which could go down as the epitaph for our age.

The problem is that political figures on both sides are attempting to harness this rage.  They are playing a dangerous game. Trump’s inflammatory tweets are an example. Likewise, former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison, now the Minnesota attorney general, once said Antifa would “strike fear in the heart” of Trump. This was after Antifa had been involved in numerous acts of violence and its website was banned in Germany. His son, Minneapolis City Council member Jeremiah Ellison, declared his allegiance to Antifa as riots raged in his city last summer.

Unleashing such rage is difficult to control and often those leading the mob find themselves later pursued by it. This is why, during the French Revolution, the journalist Jacques Mallet Pan warned, “Like Saturn, the revolution devours its children.”

California bill would make questioning school board members a crime

California is poised to codify at the state level what the feds were once requested to do — that is, turn inquisitive parents into criminals for daring to question their school board representatives.

Senate Bill 596, introduced by Democratic State Senator Anthony Portantino in February and dubbed the “School Employees: Protection” act, expands an existing law “which makes it a misdemeanor for any ‘person’ to threaten or harass a school employee during the ‘course of [their] duties,’” according to the California Globe.

This expansion adds a penalty for creating a “substantial disorder” at any meeting of a public school board, charter school board, county board of education, and the California State Board of Education.

Although “substantial disorder” is not precisely defined, the bill notes that “course of conduct” is “a pattern of conduct composed of two or more acts over a period of time, however short … evidencing a continuity of purpose.”

Gone from the definition of “harassment” is “unlawful violence” and “credible threat of violence,” and in its place is “torments, or terrorizes.”

It’s not difficult to figure out what’s happening here. A concerned parent at a school board meeting asks a board member a question and reiterates it (thereby establishing a “course of conduct”) … and if the board member feels “tormented” the parent can be arrested and charged with a fine between $500 and $1,000 and face up to a year in jail.

Or, as the Globe’s Kenny Snell (a retired longtime teacher) put it, “In California-speak, that means school boards get to decide what is substantial and what is not; what is harassment and what is not. In Totalitarian-speak that means don’t dare even think about going to a school board meeting and question their narrative or policies.”

Keep in mind that last year the National School Boards Association — in collaboration with the Biden administration — wanted the U.S. Department of Justice to label outspoken parents “domestic terrorists” and the National Guard to monitor school board meetings.

The NSBA had complained of “acts of malice” and “aggression” by parents — eerily similar to the California bill’s “torments.”

Two other pieces of concerning legislation in the Golden State noted by the California Policy Center include Corey Jackson’s (D) Assembly Bill 1078 and Mia Bonta’s Assembly Bill 1352.

The former would give local school boards’ power to make curriculum decisions to education bureaucrats in the state capital, while the latter “would allow a duly elected school board member to be removed from office if he or she disagrees with the votes of teachers union-backed board members.”

Our Nightmare is Their Utopia

The United States is just waiting on divorce papers, the separation is already here.

In the part of this nation controlled by communists like Antifa and BLM a defense attorney can openly declare herself to be a member of Antifa and (during a civil suit between Antifa and longtime Antifa nemesis Andy Ngo) tell the jury that she will remember their faces long after the trial and that isn’t considered jury tampering, obstruction of justice or threatening a jury.

How is that any different from a defense attorney looking at the jury and saying: “I work for a powerful crime family and they know where each of you live.” ?

In the same part of this divided nation, by the same political ideology, a former president and front-running candidate for the presidency can be tried on felony charges (during the campaign, not the two years before the campaign) for saying that he believed the election was stolen and for employing the tactic, openly utilized by the Democrats, of challenging the electors.

What is free speech to the right is deemed a felony to the left.

What is legally challenging an election to the right is an insurrection to the left.

This isn’t about fair, or right, or justice. This is the playbook; the time-honored communist procedure. The obvious injustice and amazing lawlessness of their actions are intended to drive the opposition mad. This is why standing behind Trump is important, because he does exactly the same thing to them. Every time he wins, they lose their mind and that doesn’t matter whether it’s in an election or in court.

Continue reading “”

FPC Files For Injunction Against Washington “Large Capacity” Magazine Ban

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that it has filed a motion for summary judgment in its Sullivan v. Ferguson lawsuit, which challenges Washington’s unconstitutional ban on common firearm magazines. The motion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“There can be no serious dispute that the magazines Washington bans are ‘in common use’—there are hundreds of millions of them [] owned by tens of millions of Americans as private surveys and industry and government data all corroborate,” argues the motion. “Indeed, courts across the country have repeatedly found that these magazines are commonly owned and widely chosen by Americans for self-defense and other lawful purposes. That fact decides this case, and Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment in their favor.”

“There are few things more offensive than politicians arbitrarily preventing people from possessing the tools they deem necessary to protect their lives, loved ones, and communities,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPCAF’s General Counsel and Vice President of Legal, and FPC’s counsel in this case. “The magazines that Washington bans are constitutionally protected and it does not have the power to infringe on the rights of Washingtonians by banning them. We’re hopeful that the Court will see the error of Washington’s ways.”

FPC is joined in this lawsuit by the Second Amendment Foundation.

The fact that the JR-15 is the example only shows what their true intentions are. Keep the kids from learning about gun safety, at all costs.

Illinois to ban advertising for guns allegedly marketed to kids and militants
Illinois will soon outlaw advertising for firearms that officials determine produce a public safety threat or appeals to children, militants or others who might later use the weapons illegally

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Illinois will soon outlaw advertising for firearms that officials determine produces a public safety threat or appeals to children, militants or others who might later use the weapons illegally, as the state continues its quest to curb mass shootings.

Gun-rights advocates say the plan, which Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker has pledged to sign into law, is an unreasonably vague decree that violates not only the constitutionally protected right to own guns, but also free speech.

The prime exhibit in Democratic Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s effort is the JR-15, a smaller, lighter version of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle advertised with the tag line, “Get ’em One Like Yours.” The maker says it is deliberately made smaller, with added safety features, to fit younger shooters as they learn from adults how to safely maneuver such a weapon. Raoul says it’s marketed to children and potentially entices them to skip the adult supervision and start firing.

Opening the door to court challenges is part of ongoing efforts by Democratic lawmakers who control the Statehouse to eliminate gun violence, made more complicated by the U.S. Supreme Court’s expansion of gun rights a year ago. Pritzker also signed a ban on semi-automatic weapons this year, a law that gun-rights advocates continue to challenge in federal court.

Illinois would be the eighth state to approve legislation that allows such lawsuits against firearms manufacturers or distributors. The legislation comes after the deadliest six months of mass killings recorded since at least 2006 — all but one of which involved guns.

Raoul finds precedent in the 25-year-old settlement with large tobacco companies and more recently with advertising for vaping.

“We’ve gone after the marketing that has historically driven up the consumption by minors for those products that are harmful to them,” Raoul said. “The firearms industry shouldn’t be immune to the standards that we put on other industries.”

Except that other industries don’t produce constitutionally protected products, counters the National Shooting Sports Foundation, an industry trade association that has filed federal lawsuits in nearly every state that has approved a similar law.

“They’re infringing on your Second Amendment rights by taking away your First Amendment rights,” foundation spokesperson Mark Oliva said.

Without specific legislation, states are largely barred from legal action by a 2005 federal law that prohibits lawsuits blaming manufacturers for the later criminal use of a purchased gun. It sprang from mayors in the late 1990s who sued gun-makers for creating a public nuisance, such as Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley’s $433 million action in 1998, which the Illinois Supreme Court tossed out in 2004.

But the federal law does allow legal action if a state explicitly names firearms and conduct by their manufacturers in state law, which is what Raoul’s plan would do. He won over lawmakers by showing them advertising they decided was over the line.

“Some of the ads I’ve seen are just stomach-turning,” Don Harmon, of Oak Park, who sponsored the legislation.

The ad for the JR-15, a smaller, lighter .22-caliber rifle, was among them. An emailed statement from the manufacturer, Wee 1 Tactical, said the gun has safety features found on no other gun.

“The JR-15 .22 youth training rifle is for adults who wish to supervise the safe introduction of hunting and shooting sports to the next generation of responsible gun owners,” the statement said. “Parents and guardians wanting to pass on this American tradition have been purchasing small caliber, lighter youth training rifles for decades.”

Continue reading “”

BLUF
This rule shows the gun community that any “compromise” will be used against gun rights, and the ATF claiming authority through the BSCA shows that the recent losses have the ATF scrambling to prevent future losses by pointing to legislation even if the law has to be taken out of context.

New Leak Shows ATF Will Pass Rule to Eliminate Private Sales

The Biden administration will use executive orders and the weaponized ATF to issue a rule limiting the private sales of firearms. According to the New York Times and verified by AmmoLand News sources, the new rule is expected to be unveiled by the end of the year.

Biden will call on the ATF to develop a new rule requiring anyone who makes any profit by selling firearms to possess an FFL. Guns tend to increase in value over time. A gun purchased in 1980 will likely sell for more money today than its original value.

The so-called “digital loophole” includes marketplaces like Armslist Firearms Classified, where private individuals can list their firearms for sale. The Biden administration wants to see these marketplaces shut down, but it is unclear exactly how that unconstitutional goal will be accomplished. Websites like Armslist do not sell firearms directly.

AmmoLand News spoke to Armslist Founder Jonathan Gibbon about the attacks his company faces and the upcoming ATF rule. Armslist has been battling anti-gun groups for years, fending off several lawsuits. Armslist has a perfect track record at defeating these attacks, but the cases are costly.

“Private-party transactions are not a ‘loophole,’” Gibbon told AmmoLand News. “Buying and selling firearms is a guaranteed right under the Second Amendment. Interfering with state laws allowing citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights should concern everyone. Americans have a First Amendment Constitutional right to use the internet, to communicate about their other Constitutional rights.”

Continue reading “”

Kabuki Theater

Don Beyer

Rep. Don Beyer (So nice when they provide pictures for PID)

Democrats demand 1,000% excise tax on ‘assault weapons,’ high-capacity magazines
Democrats failed to move the same idea when they controlled the House last year

More than two dozen House Democrats put forward legislation Friday that would slap “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines with a 1,000% excise tax, a change that would raise the price of a $500 weapon to $5,000 in a bid to reduce access to guns across the country.

Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., and 24 other House Democrats introduced the legislation Friday. It’s the second time Democrats have put forward the idea.

Beyer and 37 Democrats proposed the same idea last year when Democrats controlled the House, but it never moved.

The text of Beyer’s new bill was not out as of the weekend, and it was unclear if any changes were made from his 2022 version. His bill from last year imposed the tax on any magazine or related device that can accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The same 1,000% tax would be imposed on any “semiautomatic assault weapon,” which last year’s bill defined as a semiautomatic rifle or pistol with a fixed magazine of 10 rounds or more or that have other various features.

Under that rule, a weapon that normally costs $2,000 would force customers to pay more than $20,000, a change Beyer argued last year could help “curb the epidemic of gun violence.”

“Congress must take action to stem the flood of weapons of war into American communities, which have taken a terrible toll in Uvalde, Buffalo, Tulsa and too many other places,” Beyer said then. “Again and again assault weapons designed for use on the battlefield have been used in mass shootings at schools, grocery stores, hospitals, churches, synagogues, malls, theaters, bars and so on.”

The National Rifle Association has argued gun control advocates invented the term “assault weapon” to “deliberately confuse the public and advance the political cause of gun control.” The NRA says the term “assault rifle” applies only to automatic weapons, while gun control advocates are looking to put controls on semi-automatic weapons.

Fully automatic weapons discharge rounds continuously while the trigger is pulled, and the NRA has said these weapons are used by the U.S. armed services but are not easily obtained by the public, unlike semi-automatic weapons that fire just a single round.

Beyer’s new bill was introduced a day after more than 100 Democrats told House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., they are “disappointed” that House GOP leaders haven’t moved any legislation this year to curb gun ownership in America.

“As Members of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, we call on you to schedule votes on gun violence prevention legislation as soon as possible this year,” they wrote in a public letter to McCarthy.

“Gun violence is the leading cause of death of children in America since 2020. Last year, 1,686 children were killed and another 4,485 were injured by gun violence,” the letter added. “Despite this preventable carnage, the House has yet to vote on even one gun violence prevention bill.”

Alan Dershowitz Issues Warning: “Looks Like Banana Republic Land”

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said Friday the prosecution of former President Donald Trump “looks like banana republic land” following a NYT report that claimed President Joe Biden pressed for Trump’s indictment.

Alan said: “President Biden urged his attorney general to indict the man who he knew was going to be the leading opponent if against him.

“That begins to look like banana republic land. That’s what happens when people in power are afraid of the democratic process.

“What they do is they seek the indictment and prosecution of the people who are running against them.

“I have a constitutional right to vote against Donald Trump for the third time.

“I voted against him twice, I intend to vote against him again, but I want to have that right to vote against him and not have that right taken away from me by prosecutors and by the president, who wants to see him imprisoned.

“That’s just not the American way.

“This is a step in that direction(banana republic), and also placing the case in the District of Columbia, which is 95% anti-Trump, putting it in front of a judge with a history of anti-Trump.

“If the government thinks they have a strong case, they ought to join the defense and agree to move it to West Virginia or Virginia and put it in front of another judge who doesn’t have a long history of anti-Trump attitudes.

“So, I don’t believe he can get a fair trial in the District of Columbia.”

Everybody Keeps Indicting Trump, Without Regard for Consequences.

Having already said what I had to say about the most recent indictment of the former president (“Banana Republic, U.S.A.”), I thought perhaps readers might want to know what liberals are saying about it.

Trump’s surreal arraignment day in Washington augurs ominous days ahead

That’s the headline on an “analysis” by CNN reporter Stephen Collinson, and this might be the first time I’ve ever the verb “augur” used in a headline. “Portend,” maybe, but “augur”? No, can’t recall ever seeing that one, and it might help to know that Collinson is not American. He’s from England, where I suppose schoolboys at posh academies are taught to use references to the ancient Roman practice of augury, but I digress . . .

As former President Donald Trump left Washington after answering charges of trying to subvert democracy, it felt like all the previous trauma and divisions of his eight-year journey into the nation’s psyche were just the start.

America now faces the prospect of an ex-president repeatedly going on trial in an election year in which he’s the Republican front-runner and is promising a new White House term of retribution. He is responding with the same kind of extreme rhetoric that injected fury into his political base and erupted into violence after the last election. Ominous and tense days may be ahead.

Trump spent the afternoon at a federal courthouse within sight of the US Capitol that was ransacked by his supporters on January 6, 2021. He pleaded not guilty in the gravest of the three cases in which he has so far been indicted – on four charges arising from an alleged attempt to halt the “collecting, counting and certifying” of votes after the 2020 election.
Live video of Trump motorcading to an airport and sweeping into yet another city for yet another indictment on his branded jetliner has become part of a sudden new normal. But if the arraignment of a former president seems routine, it’s a measure of the historic chaos Trump has wrought since he bulldozed into politics in 2015.

Wearing his classic dark suit and long red tie, Trump on Thursday rose to his full height in court and slowly and clearly elucidated the words “not guilty” in a hearing in which his fall from president to defendant was underscored when he had to wait silently for the judge to arrive. He was irked, sources familiar with his mindset told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, that the judge referred to him simply as “Mr. Trump,” rather than with the presidential title he still used at his clubs.

The 45th president and special counsel Jack Smith – who has also indicted him for the alleged mishandling of classified documents – shared several glances, before a proceeding that, unlike when he was president, means Trump’s fate is now out of his control.
The entire day was surreal, but given its historic implications – after Trump became the first ex-president formally charged in relation to alleged crimes committed in office – also sad.

Thursday was a day when the country crossed a point of no return. For the first time, the United States formally charged one of its past leaders with trying to subvert its core political system and values.

It was Trump who forced the country over this dangerous threshold. A man whose life’s creed is to never be seen as a loser refused to accept defeat in a democratic election in 2020, then set off on a disastrous course because, as Smith’s indictment put it, “he was determined to stay in power.”

Trump is steering a stormy course to an unknown destination. If he wins back the White House, the already twice-impeached new president could trigger a new constitutional crisis by sweeping away the federal cases against him or even by pardoning himself. Any alternative Republican president could find themselves besieged by demands from Trump supporters for a pardon that, if granted, could overshadow their entire presidency. And if Trump is convicted, and loses a 2024 general election, he risks a long jail term, which would likely become fuel for him to incite his supporters to fresh protest. . . .

Well, enough of that. Notice how Collinson pretends that all of this was Trump’s fault, as if nobody else involved — Attorney General Merrick Garland or Special Counsel Jack Smith — had any choice or discretion in the matter. No, they had to indict Trump. Because Trump “forced the country over this dangerous threshold,” which I suppose is pretty much how the Roundheads explained themselves after they beheaded King Charles I: “We had no choice! He made us do it!” The Roundheads then set up a “Republic” far more tyrannical than anything Charles ever did, much the same as those later regicides in France imposed a tyranny more brutal and repressive than the monarchy of Louis XVI, and likewise the Bolsheviks were infinitely worse than Czar Nicholas.

One might notice a historical pattern here, and then — since we’re speaking of ominous auguries — contemplate America’s future once Our Leaders save us from Trump’s alleged threat to “subvert democracy.”

But these people seem to have no proper sense of history, no more than they have any sense of irony or self-awareness, which explains the latest entry in John Hoge’s “I’m Not Making This Up, You Know” files:

Energy Sec Granholm secretly consulted top CCP energy official before SPR releases

EXCLUSIVE: Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm engaged in multiple conversations with the Chinese government’s top energy official days before the Biden administration announced it would tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to combat high gas prices in 2021.

Granholm’s previously-undisclosed talks with China National Energy Administration Chairman Zhang Jianhua — revealed in internal Energy Department calendars obtained by Americans for Public Trust (APT) and shared with Fox News Digital — reveal that the Biden administration likely discussed its plans to release oil from the SPR with China before its public announcement.

According to the calendars, Granholm spoke in one-on-one conversations with Jianhua, who is a longstanding senior member of the Chinese Communist Party, on Nov. 19, 2021, and two days later on Nov. 21, 2021. Then, on Nov. 23, 2021, the White House announced a release of 50 million barrels of oil from the SPR, the largest release of its kind in U.S. history at the time.

“Secretary Granholm’s multiple closed-door meetings with a CCP-connected energy official raise serious questions about the level of Chinese influence on the Biden administration’s energy agenda,” APT Executive Director Caitlin Sutherland told Fox News Digital.

“Instead of focusing on creating real energy independence for America, Granholm has been too busy parroting Chinese energy propaganda and insisting ‘we can all learn from what China is doing,’” Sutherland continued. “The public deserves to know the extent to which Chinese officials are attempting to infiltrate U.S. energy policy and security.”

In a statement, the DOE said the meeting was broadly part of the agency’s effort to combat climate change, but didn’t share what was discussed at the meeting.

Continue reading “”

Biden and Obama: The two Democratic presidents of the country’s only credit downgrades

Former President Barack Obama once explained how he would have arranged for a third term as president. He jokingly explained how it essentially involved having a puppet as president in which there would be a “frontman or frontwoman” with Obama directing them what to do while in “his basement in his sweats.” Three years into the Biden administration and these comments make Obama look like a soothsayer.

“If I could make an arrangement where I had a stand-in, a frontman or frontwoman, and they had an earpiece in, and I was just in my basement in my sweats, looking through the stuff, then deliver the lines, but somebody else was doing all the talking — I’d be fine with that,” Obama said to Stephen Colbert in 2020.

After the news of the Fitch downgrade, Obama’s joke now seems like an accurate description of the Biden presidency, mainly since only two presidents have overseen the country suffer credit downgrades: Joe Biden and Barack Obama. Biden’s was this past week with Fitch; Obama’s was with Standard & Poor in April 2011. Both downgrades occurred during each president’s third year in office. And, naturally, both presidents sought to blame Republicans each time. Blaming the GOP was a hallmark of the Obama legacy.

Obama’s downgrade in 2011 was the first time the United States was given a credit rating below AAA. S&P decided to lower the country’s rating to AA+ because the federal government failed to provide a credible plan to confront the soaring national debt at the time, CNN Money reported. S&P also blamed political gridlock, squabbling, and “dysfunctional policymaking” for the decrease.

“The downgrade reflects our opinion that the … plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics,” S&P declared at the time. “The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed.”

Fast forward 12 years later, and Obama’s vice president in 2011, Joe Biden, is now in charge. Once again, a credit agency downgraded the nation’s rating to AA+ from AAA. Coincidence? I don’t think so. The Fitch decision was based on “a steady deterioration of governance over the last 20 years” — the majority of that time occurring during the Obama and Biden presidencies.

Additionally, Fitch explained other factors behind its decision, including “repeated debt limit standoffs and last minute resolutions” and a “high and growing general government debt burden.” Other reasons included the government lacking a “medium-term fiscal framework” and having a “complex budgeting process.”

One of the most essential factors in the Fitch decision was a scathing indictment of “Bidenomics.” For all the rampant celebratory propaganda Democrats have spread regarding the economy under the Biden administration, projections call for “weak 2024 GDP growth” and a mild recession at the end of this year and into the first quarter of 2024.

Fitch also predicted “GDP growth slowing to 1.2% this year” and an anticipated “growth of just 0.5% in 2024.” It’s “Bidenomics” at work. And it should be noted that Biden’s weak GDP growth prediction is similar to the underwhelming Obama economy in 2011, the time of the last credit downgrade, which resulted in a measly 1.5% GDP growth. This is why Democrats are trying to deflect from this reality and pin the blame on Donald Trump or things like January 6th. They want to hide the truth of the adverse outcomes they helped create.

It’s no coincidence that both credit downgrades happened under Democrats — especially Democrats who were part of the same presidential administration. Democratic policies have been hampering the country for quite some time. It’s as if their entire party is immune to accepting responsibility for their political actions, no matter how often they misled the public into believing the opposite. Democrats should look at themselves instead of blaming Republicans for their failures.

and one more time:

Image

Meet the Company Trying to Control Your Mind

There’s a group of people who control what you are allowed to see — the news you read, the videos you watch, the posts you engage with.

You haven’t heard of them. You don’t know their names, but they determine, through methods both direct and indirect, whether you are allowed to be exposed to particular messages. Their decisions can bankrupt companies, silence voices and fundamentally shift cultural norms. Who are these people and how do they do this?

Well, at the top level you have a network of global elites who have created a universal framework full of guidelines and ratings designed to enforce “approved” narratives and punish disapproved ones. It sounds like a conspiracy theory, except it isn’t a secret and we’re not guessing.

First, you have the World Economic Forum, the WEF, and their platform for shaping the future of media, entertainment and culture. Second, you have the World Federation of Advertisers, the WFA, who represent mega-corporations that control 90% of global advertising dollars. WFA members are a who’s who of global business and include some of our recent wokeified favorites like Bud Light’s parent company Anheuser-Busch InBev, Hershey, Procter & Gamble, Lego and Disney.

There is barely a billionaire Fortune 500 CEO, heavyweight philanthropist, government or woke nonprofit that isn’t associated with the WEF or the WFA.

In 2019, the WFA established the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, or GARM. Within months, the WEF adopted GARM as part of its platform for shaping the future of media, entertainment and culture. GARM is a cross-industry alliance that brings these mega-corporations — the advertisers — together with Big Tech companies like Meta, who owns Facebook and Instagram; Google-owned YouTube; the CCP’s TikTok; and even Snapchat and Pinterest.

This unholy alliance created something they call the Brand Safety Floor & Suitability Framework. Think of Brand Safety as a dog whistle for censorship. They say it themselves: The Brand Safety Floor means, “Content not appropriate for any advertising support.” In other words, if you publish content that violates these guidelines, you will be blacklisted from 90% of the advertising revenue in the marketplace.

So, what have these global elites decided to put in their censorship framework? They started with things we can all universally agree on, like preventing the distribution of child pornography or the advocacy of graphic terrorist activity. But they don’t draw the line at what is objectively criminal, abusive or dangerous. They continue expanding the guidelines to include far more subjective parameters.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
Maybe a few honest liberals might come out against this. But don’t hold your breath waiting on a major reaction from the Democratic establishment; unfortunately, this is the exact kind of thing they think the federal government should be doing. And that’s the truly scary part of this whole saga.

Leaked emails expose Biden White House’s attacks on the First Amendment

The “Twitter Files” reporting from last year exposed a disturbing collusion between Twitter executives and officials from the federal government to censor the public’s speech. But new revelations from Congress show that the Biden White House and Facebook have engaged in similar collusion.

On Thursday, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who leads the House Judiciary Committee, released internal Facebook emails that show the Big Tech platform was explicitly pressured by the Biden administration to take down specific posts that the president’s allies disliked.