Connect with us

Politics

Missouri v. Biden Proves Corporate Media Lied About Big Tech’s Censorship Crusade Against Conservatives

Published

on

Corporate media mocked widespread conservative outrage over online censorship as a “baseless” and misdirected ploy to gin up controversy and votes, but Missouri v. Biden proves Big Tech and the federal government colluded to suppress “millions of protected free speech postings by American citizens.”

There is hardly a lack of proof that Americans were the subject of years of government-led partisan purges on Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms.

Emails, documents, files, and statements show that it was often at the prompting of federal agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Census Bureau, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, the FBI, and the Department of Justice, as well as the White House, that Big Tech effectively silenced the voices of countless Americans on Covid-19, elections, and criticism of the Biden regime.

In his 155-page memorandum ruling handed down on July 4, Judge Terry Doughty, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, asserted that the attorneys general who brought the case will likely see victory in court with their claim that “the United States Government, through the White House and numerous federal agencies, pressured and encouraged social-media companies to suppress free speech.”

“Defendants used meetings and communications with social-media companies to pressure those companies to take down, reduce, and suppress the free speech of American citizens. They flagged posts and provided information

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Politics

Georgia Secretary Of State’s Office Urges Lawfare Against Election Officials Who Don’t Rubber-Stamp Results

Published

on

The chief operating officer of Georgia’s Secretary of State’s office urged “every jurisdiction” to have a plan to threaten election officials with lawfare if they don’t want to rubber-stamp election results (even if the results are “off by one or two”).

The executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, David Becker, asked Gabe Sterling on Monday to detail “what might happen” if someone was “successful in delaying or denying certification [of election results].”

Sterling first argued that certification of an election is “ministerial” — meaning board members must effectively rubber-stamp election results despite their concerns — before rebuking newly passed rules that clarify county election board members can have access to election-related materials before certification.

The Georgia State Election Board (SEB) recently passed a rule (Rule 183-1-12-.02) that clarifies county election boards can fulfill their certification responsibility “after reasonable inquiry that the tabulation and canvassing of the election are complete and accurate and that the results are a true and accurate accounting of all votes cast in that election.” The SEB passed a separate rule (Rule 183-1-12-.12) that permits board members to review “all election related documentation created during the conduct of elections prior to certification of results.”

“This idea that they have to have more and more and more paper information at the end of the process even though they’ve been a part of the process the entire time is a little, you know, disconcerting that people don’t understand the role,” Sterling said.

Sterling then

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

Biden-Harris Hid Info On Suspected Terrorists Crossing The Border From The Public, Former Border Agent Claims

Published

on

The Biden-Harris administration instructed Border Patrol officials from releasing information to the American public on suspected terrorists crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, a former senior agent claimed on Wednesday.

Speaking before the House Homeland Security Committee, retired Chief Border Patrol Agent Aaron Heitke alleged that administration officials told him he “could not release any names or information” on the increase of “significant interest aliens (SIAs)” — illegals with “significant ties to terrorism” — apprehended at the southern border. Heitke was promoted to chief patrol agent of the San Diego sector in February 2020 and retired last summer.

The former Border Patrol agent noted that the San Diego sector “averaged 10 to 15 SIA arrests per year” prior to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris taking office. Once “word got out” about the administration’s open border policies, the sector experienced an exponential increase in the number of SIAs apprehended by U.S. agents, Heitke contended.

After Biden and Harris took office, “San Diego went to over 100 SIAs in 2022, well over that in 2023, and even more than that registered this year,” he said. “These are only the ones we caught.”

Heitke claimed that in keeping information about suspected terrorists crossing the border hidden, the administration was “trying to convince the public there was no threat at the border.”

In addition to a mass influx of fentanyl into the United States, the retired border chief noted how he had to “release illegal aliens by the hundreds each day into

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

Democrats’ Abortion Extremism Would Not Be Possible Without Help From Corporate Media

Published

on

The abortion extremism that Democrats have made the hallmark of their campaigns in recent years did not sneak into red states and onto debate stages by accident. It is the corporate media’s years-long willingness to amplify abortion activism that gave Democrats desperate to control the narrative on unborn life the ability to make killing babies the center of their 2024 election strategy.

For years, top Democrats have rejected any limits on ending life in the womb. Those blue party members who refuse to admit to their affinity for unlimited abortion so plainly, such as Vice President Kamala Harris, make it clear where they stand when they throw their support behind bills and ballot measures that seek to codify killing unborn babies through birth.

Democrats have publicly advocated for abortion for all regardless of the circumstances in all 50 states. They’ve even pledged to stop at nothing, including the filibuster, to ensure it happens. Yet, corporate media have deliberately avoided forcing pro-abortion politicians to reconcile their radicalism with Americans’ widespread support for restricting abortion.

To put it bluntly, the propaganda press quite literally let Democrats get away with murder without saying a word.

Even the talking heads that dare to ask Democrat candidates and officials exactly what week of pregnancy abortion permissions should end do so meekly and without adequate follow-up.

.@VP Harris calls on Congress to codify the abortion rights protections of Roe v. Wade, and does not say which week of pregnancy should be the cutoff

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Trending