Biden Cartel Censorship Corruption Government Overreach Gun Control Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. The Courts

Federal Judge Delivers Blow to Democrats.

Hits: 46

Federal Judge Delivers Blow to Democrats. A federal judge in the Southern District of New York has ruled that a gun ban in New York City is unconstitutional, dealing a blow to Democrats pushing for stricter gun control.

The case involved a Brooklyn resident, Joseph Srour, whose applications to possess firearms in his home were denied based on city regulations.

The judge determined that the regulations granting broad discretion to licensing officials were not in line with historical traditions of firearm regulation and violated the Second Amendment.

“The reasons cited for the denial were Sections 3-03 and 5-10 of Title 38 of the Rules of the City of New York (RCNY),” the report found.

“The License Division’s Appeals Unit pointed to Srour’s prior arrests, his driving history, and allegations of false statements on his applications as the primary reasons for the denial.”

Judge John P. Cronan, who presided over the case, said the Second Amendment explicitly safeguards “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”

“The court took umbrage with the provisions that permitted the denial of a firearm permit based on a City official’s subjective determination of the applicant’s ‘good moral character’ or if the official found ‘other good cause,’” the report added.

“These standards, as per the court’s findings, were overly broad and lacked restraint, with no historical foundation in the country to support them.”

The ruling has broader implications for gun rights and regulations.

The post Federal Judge Delivers Blow to Democrats appeared first on America Insider.


Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Commentary Government Overreach Links from other news sources. The Courts The Law

This is going nowhere. Democrats want term limits for the Supreme Court, but not for the Senate.

Hits: 16

This is going nowhere.  Democrats want term limits for the Supreme Court, but not for the Senate. I say if they want to do term limits for Justices, why not for Senators?

Why not make the court based on ethnic population? And how about not using Affirmative Action? This goes nowhere. Introducing the bill were Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey; Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Alex Padilla of California. The bottom of the barrel.

Under the proposed legislation, a new justice would be appointed every two years, The Hill reported. That justice would hear every case for 18 years. The justice would then step back from the bench and hear just a “small number of constitutionally required cases.”

Appellate cases, which make up the bulk of the courts’ cases, would be heard only by the nine most recently appointed justices. The remainder would take part in a smaller number of cases under the court’s “original justification,” according to the news outlet.


Child Abuse Crime Drugs Emotional abuse Human Traficking Sexual Abuse The Courts

More Arkancide? Epstein Victim Who Testified Against Ghislaine Maxwell Has Died

Hits: 29

Epstein Victim Found Dead after Testifying against Prince Andrew, Ghislaine Maxwell.

No obituary or funeral service after she died…

From multiple sources.

The world lost a brave woman recently, Carolyn Andriano, who had been a crucial witness in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, the accomplice of notorious sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Andriano’s sudden death, ruled as an accidental overdose, has raised eyebrows and stirred suspicions due to its timing and the circumstances surrounding it.

Carolyn Andriano, a victim of sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein whose testimony was crucial to putting away his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, has died.

Her death went unreported in the media until now.

There was no obituary or funeral service after she died earlier this year, and police in West Palm Beach, Florida, opened an investigation into her death. After The Daily Beast reached out for comment, police spokesman Mike Jachles told us that the investigation was concluding and that Carolyn died of an accidental overdose.

The 36-year-old mother-of-five had planned to start a new chapter in North Carolina, at a new house with a fireplace and half-acre lot with a chicken coop. Carolyn and her husband, John Pitts, had purchased the property just weeks before she was found unresponsive in a West Palm Beach hotel room on May 23.

Before her death, “she was ecstatic,” Carolyn’s mother, Dorothy Groenert, told The Daily Beast. “She was all set up for a whole new lifestyle.”

Groenert says Carolyn’s death was a shock because she was working on building a new life and recently texted her about being free of drugs and alcohol.

The way Groenert sees it, some things about her daughter’s overdose don’t make sense, and she wants cops to investigate further.

Jachles, however, said that Carolyn’s case would officially be closed this week. Officers on the scene took a statement from Pitts, who told them that Carolyn had been using drugs, and Carolyn’s brother, who rushed to the hotel after Pitts texted Groenert that Carolyn had died. Pitts tried to administer CPR and “was given directions over the phone with 911,” Jachles said.

“It shouldn’t be closed,” Groenert said of the police investigation. “I begged them, I sent them numerous messages. I’ve asked for them to make meetings, contact me, and to no avail.”

Now Groenert is in a legal battle with Pitts over Carolyn’s will, which was filed in 2010 before she married him and which left her estate to her mother and two oldest children. Because the will hadn’t been updated, Pitts and his three kids with Carolyn were left out of her estate. Carolyn had received millions from Epstein-related settlements, though probate court documents indicate she had $183,000 in a bank account. The filings also listed unknown assets as the JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank class action settlements—which, as The Daily Beast reported, amount to $290 million and $75 million, respectively, and will result in big payouts to victims.

Since Carolyn’s death, he’s posted tributes to her on Facebook and mourned his family’s loss.

“You showed me what love really is and I will never forget how big your heart is,” Pitts wrote in June, adding, “I know our souls will always be attached together.”

“I will do right by you because I know what u really wanted in life to give our kids the life we never had… I miss u so much no words can say just know I will give our kids the best life that I can…”

While Pitts could not be reached, his sister Serena told The Daily Beast that Groenert’s and her family’s suggestion that Carolyn’s death was suspicious is “ridiculous.”

“Right now our family is grieving the loss of Carolyn and prioritizing the care of her children. At this time we kindly appreciate space and privacy,” she added in a text.

The Daily Beast has submitted requests for information to both the medical examiner and police department. While a cause or manner of death hasn’t been released, a toxicology report indicates Carolyn had methadone, fentanyl, and alprazolam (the generic name for Xanax) in her system when she died.

Lewis Nelson, professor and chair of the Rutgers New Jersey Medical School’s Department of Emergency Medicine and Director of the Division of Medical Toxicology, said alprazolam and fentanyl can be a dangerous combination, as both drugs suppress breathing.

“Her fentanyl use was very recent,” said Nelson, who is not involved in Carolyn’s case but independently reviewed her toxicology report. “My postulation is she is on methadone, takes a high dose, she took fentanyl, and she died quickly.” The low levels of a metabolite of fentanyl, Nelson added, suggest that Carolyn died before her body had time to metabolize the drug. Bloodwork, however, doesn’t usually paint a picture of how often someone uses a substance.

Carolyn was one of four victims to testify at the Maxwell trial in December 2021, telling the jury that the British socialite had groped her and routinely scheduled her “massages” with Epstein, who molested her up to three times until she was “too old” for him at age 18.

At the start, a Manhattan federal prosecutor asked Carolyn if she’d ever been addicted to drugs, and she replied, “Pain pills and cocaine.” Carolyn also testified about her home life when she was 14 and had first visited Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion in 2001. “I was allowed to do whatever I wanted,” she said, adding, “Because my mom was an alcoholic and a drug addict.” (Asked about Carolyn’s testimony, Groenert denied this. “No, I was working. I was working to pay for my children. I didn’t get any supplements. I had to work,” she said. “That’s inaccurate.”)

Carolyn, who said she dropped out in seventh grade and never returned to school, later testified that she became addicted to drugs while visiting Epstein’s lair: “Marijuana, cocaine, alcohol, anything that could block out for me to go to the appointment.”

She had confided in Maxwell and Epstein about her history of being sexually abused as a young child (by a relative at age 4) and of her family’s struggles with addiction. This emboldened the sick high-society couple to groom her and even attempt to bring her to Epstein’s U.S. Virgin Islands compound. “I told him I was only 15 and I couldn’t leave,” Carolyn said of Epstein.

The prosecutor also asked Carolyn about her medications, and she answered that she took methadone, an antidepressant, Xanax, and a drug for schizophrenia because “I am scared that my kids are going to get kidnapped.”

When Maxwell’s lawyer cross-examined Carolyn, he noted the Epstein victim compensation fund awarded her $3.25 million but had subtracted $446,000 because she’d received that amount in 2009 from a lawsuit against Epstein and his assistant Sarah Kellen.

“Yes, but no money will ever fix what’s happened to me,” Carolyn responded.

Carolyn testified using only her first name but came forward to the Daily Mail after Maxwell’s conviction. During this interview, she spoke of Pitts’ support.

“I had rosary beads in my hands for the entire time and my husband was in the courtroom and every time I felt like I was getting weak, he would give me a little thumbs up or I’d clench the beads,” Carolyn told the tabloid. “I was determined to have the strength to have this woman put away for what she did to me and other young women.”

“Sure, they accused me of lying, but I knew that was coming and I stood up to it because I was telling the God’s honest truth.”

At another point in the interview, Carolyn suggested that Virginia Giuffre, a victim who allegedly recruited her into Epstein’s sex ring, deserved to face similar consequences as Maxwell because, she claimed, Giuffre “trafficked me into a world of spiraling downward slopes and it has taken my husband John 12 long years to get me to love myself again.”

“I’m very happy being a wife and a mother and I want to show people how the tragedies in my life did not stop me,” she added. “I’m overcoming them. I’m not going to let Maxwell and Epstein ruin my life anymore. I’m grateful every day when I wake up.”

Questions:  Why was there no funeral and no obituary? Why is her sister-in-law so sure there is nothing suspicious about this death?

These two facts make it VERY suspicious to me. — TPR


America's Heartland Back Door Power Grab Censorship Child Abuse Commentary Corruption Crime Education Government Overreach Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. The Courts The Law Transgender

Winning. Wisconsin mother hopeful after court ruling in favor of parents’ rights to know about child’s transition.

Hits: 13

Winning. Wisconsin mother hopeful after court ruling in favor of parents’ rights to know about child’s transition. So here’s another case of where a school felt that they knew what’s best for a child when it comes to their gender.

Parents sued the Kettle Moraine School District outside Milwaukee, Wisconsin, over its policy that enabled and supported students’ transitions to different gender identities at school without informing or receiving consent from a child’s parents.

Judge Michael Maxwell ruled in the Waukesha County Circuit Court that the policy “violates parents’ constitutional right to determine the appropriate medical and healthcare for their children.” Going forward, the judge said the district is no longer permitted to allow or require “staff to refer to students using a name or pronouns at odds with the student’s biological sex, while at school, without express parental consent.”


Biden Cartel Biden Pandemic Censorship Commentary COVID Faked news Government Overreach Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Medicine Reprints from others. Science The Courts The Law

Newsom repeals CA law that ‘censored’ doctors giving COVID-19 care.

Hits: 11

Newsom repeals CA law that ‘censored’ doctors giving COVID-19 care.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill to repeal a Democrat-backed initiative that guided how medical professionals could talk about the coronavirus to avoid what one critic called “humiliation” in court.

California Assembly Bill (AB) 2098, passed in September 2022, authorized the revocation of the licenses of any medical professional if they “disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.”

A group of doctors, represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), sued Newsom and the state in court, leading to a judge imposing a preliminary injunction in the case.

NCLA says Newsom and Democrats saw “the writing on the wall,” and moved to repeal the law.


California Gov. Gavin Newsom

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has been the subject of criticism from both sides of the aisle for his handling of the pandemic. (MediaNews Group/East Bay Times via Getty Images)

“Governor Newsom and the state legislature saw the writing on the wall after Judge Shubb’s grant of a preliminary injunction in January,” said Jenin Younes, counsel at NCLA.

“Rather than suffer further humiliation in federal court, and implicitly conceding the unconstitutionality of AB 2098, the State of California has taken the unusual step of repealing a law that hasn’t even been in effect for a year,” said Younes, calling the repeal “a significant victory.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, while imposing strict social distancing and mask mandates statewide, was on multiple occasions caught violating his own rules. (AP Photo/José Luis Villegas, File)

Greg Dolin, a senior litigator at NCLA, said it was “sad that it took a full year and a federal court ruling to reaffirm a 250-year-old fundamental truth — in this country, ‘no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in… matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.'”

NCLA said that the law violated the doctors’ First Amendment rights to free speech and their 14th Amendment rights to due process of law.

“It interfered with the ability of doctors and their patients to freely communicate, serving as a weapon to intimidate and punish doctors who dissented from mainstream views,” the group said.

According to NCLA, physicians and individuals on social media threatened several of the group’s clients with using AB 2098 to take their licenses away, which they claimed was evidence that the law’s insidious intent was always to silence doctors who depart from state orthodoxy on COVID-19.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom and family

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, accompanied by his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom and their children, delivers remarks after winning his second term in office in Sacramento, California, on Nov. 8, 2022. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)

Newsom has been the subject of criticism from both sides of the aisle for his handling of the pandemic, which mounted to an unsuccessful bid to have him recalled.

Newsom, while imposing strict social distancing and mask mandates statewide, was on multiple occasions caught violating his own rules. In 2020, he was spotted at the French Laundry restaurant in Napa Valley socializing with a large group of people from outside his household while not wearing a mask.

Last year, Newsom and other Democratic California leaders were spotted maskless at a San Francisco 49ers-Los Angeles Rams game despite the state’s universal indoor mask mandate.

A representative for Newsom did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.


Commentary Corruption Crime Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others. The Courts The Law Uncategorized

Hillary Clinton Gets Bad News From Judge

Hits: 30

Hillary Clinton Gets Bad News From Judge.

Story by Taylor Gold 

The Clinton Foundation, which was launched by former President Bill Clinton and former First Lady Hillary Clinton, has been under major scrutiny and rocked by scandals for years.

As a non-profit, the foundation is accused of abusing its expense privileges and creating a tax haven for the multi-millionaire Clinton family.

The foundation has been involved in shady deals that exploit the Clintons’ power and influence, including the solicitation of large donations from countries where the Clintons have business interests. 

As a result, U.S. Tax Court Judge David Gustafson signaled that more legal problems may lay ahead for the Clintons.

TEAM USA 🇺🇸 on X: “Do you think the investigation into Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation should be reopened?” / X (

The bombshell “Durham Report” by Special counsel John Durham found that the Clintons have avoided legal trouble due to their power.

Specifically, the FBI and DOJ were guilty of “significant failures” related to investigating allegations into the Clintons.

Beginning in 2014, the Durham report found that the FBI was hesitant and “more careful” to proceed with the investigation into the high-profile political family because agents were “scared with the big name [Clinton]” involved. 

“They were pretty ‘tippy-toeing’ around HRC because there was a chance she would be the next President,” the report found.

A reliable whistleblower alleged IRS improprieties involving the controversial Clinton Foundation.

Judge Gustafson previously refused an IRS request to dismiss the case. The judge has demanded that the IRS disclose whether it conducted a criminal investigation into the foundation.

Judge Gustafson said there is a “gap” in the IRS’s records and suspicions about its investigation.

In 2018, witnesses testified before Congress that the Clinton Foundation wrongfully operated as a foreign lobbyist by accepting overseas donations. This was an illegal attempt to influence U.S. policy.

A reliable source told the FBI that a foreign government planned to support and “contribute” to Hillary Clinton’s anticipated presidential campaign as a way to “gain influence with Clinton should she win the presidency,” the Durham report found.

𝐌𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐒® on X: “After John Durham bombshell, judge breathes new life into Clinton Foundation whistleblower case U.S. Tax Court judge has once again breathed new life into a years-long whistleblower case alleging IRS improprieties involving the controversial Clinton Foundation.   U.S. Tax Court…” / X (

An FBI field office began investigating this claim and sought a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant.

Republican Florida Rep. Donalds continued, “Look, the media was in on this from the beginning in my view. They are the ones that were helping to launder out Hillary Clinton’s phony made up information about Donald Trump, the same information that she used with her friends at the upper echelon of FBI to start the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.”

“So her media friends are not going to come out now and say we were wrong and this is damning,” Donalds continued. “They are just going to laugh it off, cover it for one or two days and then ignore it.


America's Heartland Biden Cartel Black Supremacy Censorship Commentary Corruption Economy Education Elections Government Overreach Gun Control Opinion Politics Progressive Racism Science Social Venues-Twitter The Border The Courts The Law Tony the Fauch Transgender Trump Un documented. White Progressive Supremacy WOKE Work Place

Time to focus on where Republicans are winning with the American Voters.

Hits: 12

Time to focus on where Republicans are winning with the American Voters. I’ve made a decision that it’s time to ease up on the criminal activities of Joe and Hunter Biden. Don’t get me wrong. There’s crimes that have been committed, but we must look at the big picture.

Republicans are winning on the Border, The Economy, Education, COVID, and Green Energy. The Biden administration is screwing up in all of those areas. They want us to just focus on Hunter so their other misdeeds will go unnoticed.

So unless it’s earth shattering and a main News issue of the day, this writer will ease up on the Hunter and Joe Biden money laundering.



Biden Cartel Censorship Corruption How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Media Woke Reprints from others. The Courts The Law White Progressive Supremacy WOKE

5 Major Problems with ProPublica’s Latest ‘Ethics’ Hit Piece on Justice Clarence Thomas.

Hits: 21

5 Major Problems with ProPublica’s Latest ‘Ethics’ Hit Piece on Justice Clarence Thomas.

By Ken Klukowski

Lawyer who served in the White House and Justice Department.

There are five major problems with the latest so-called “ethics” attack on Justice Clarence Thomas, which this time is a hit piece from the leftwing ProPublica, attempting to kick Thomas off an upcoming Supreme Court case.

ProPublica has the vapors over the fact that Thomas flew on a private jet to a conference in Palm Springs in 2018 hosted by the network of Charles and David Koch, suggesting several ethics violations. ProPublica is legally wrong on every claim.

Two problems are that Supreme Court justices can speak at nonpartisan gatherings so long as there are no presentations to or from parties to a case currently pending before the Court, and the justice does not engage in fundraising.

First, Thomas did not present at the conference on any issues pending before the court, and no parties or lawyers on cases that were scheduled at the court made any presentations to him.

Second, although fundraising certainly takes place at such gatherings, so long as the justice does not ask for money, the fact that private citizens do so is not an ethics concern for a justice in attendance.

On various occasions when liberal justices like Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor have spoken at events, fundraising people huddle about how to promote the justice’s name to raise more money off the event. But Kagan and Sotomayor violate no ethics rules when this happens, because they are not the ones engaged in fundraising.

Third, it is utterly irrelevant that the Koch Network supports filing briefs in a case currently before the court that would change the scope of the federal government’s regulatory law. Justices frequently speak at events hosted by groups that take positions on pending matters, and the upcoming case is no different.

That case, Loper Bright, asks the court to overrule a 1984 case named Chevron, where the court held that courts should defer to agency bureaucrats about whether regulations are consistent with a law passed by Congress, if Congress’s law is either silent or ambiguous about the precise legal question at issue in the regulation.

Chevron should be overruled because it is egregiously wrong and has led to terrible results. It upends bedrock principles of the rule of law for judges who defer to the almost-all-powerful government about the government’s claims as to the government’s own power over citizens and companies. If anyone should get the benefit of the doubt, it should be the powerless ordinary citizen. But better yet, there should be no deference, and judges should just interpret the law and the regulations the same way they interpret any other law, regulation, or contract. (Full disclosure: I coauthored one of the many briefs in Loper Bright urging the Supreme Court to overrule Chevron.)

The left is panicking over Loper BrightChevron gives unelected bureaucrats enhanced power over the lives of private citizens on countless issues, from energy production, to transportation, to immigration, to transgenderism in schools, to firearms. It hobbles the ability of courts to require Congress to legislate clearly and for public policy to be made by officials accountable to the people. Overruling Chevron would restore transparency and good government, so the left is trying to disqualify conservative justices like Thomas from being able to vote on it.

Fourth, ProPublica’s authors are again ignoring judicial standards on personal hospitality. During the time in question (2018), if private individuals are a friend of a Supreme Court justice and offer the justice a seat on a private airplane, that form of personal hospitality is ethically allowed. Liberal justices like the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the retired Stephen Breyer frequently accepted such hospitality.

Fifth, even federal judges on lower courts that are already subject to the ethics code that Senate Democrats are trying to foist on the Supreme Court – a code that would be unconstitutional, because the Supreme Court is a coequal branch of government. In May 2005, Judge Ray Randolph – a highly respected judge on the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit – conferred with ethics counsel at the Judicial Conference regarding a similar trip.

The judicial ethics expert at the Judicial Conference responded that the trip did not even need to be disclosed. So even if the Supreme Court could be forced into a subordinate role to Congress, like the federal appeals courts are, such trips would still be permitted.

The left’s latest desperate attempt to smear Thomas – this one from ProPublica – appears to be yet another swing and miss. And the fact that it focused so heavily on gaslighting the American people about Loper Bright shows that it is just the latest attempt at reverse court-packing to disqualify conservative justices in a brazen attempt to manipulate the outcome of a Supreme Court case on government power.



Corruption Free Speech Government Overreach Reprints from others. The Courts The Law

Judge: Biden Admin Violated Doctor’s First Amendment Rights

Hits: 25

Bhattacharya is a professor of medicine, economics and health research policy at Stanford University, where he serves as director of the Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging.

Exerting a pressure campaign on social media companies to censor COVID-19 skeptics

A federal appeals court ruled that the White House, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FBI, and the surgeon general violated a Stanford doctor’s First Amendment rights by using social media to silence him by exerting a pressure campaign on social media companies to censor COVID-19 skeptics — including Stanford epidemiologist Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.

“I think this ruling is akin to the second Enlightenment,” Bhattacharya told The Post. “It’s a ruling that says there’s a democracy of ideas. The issue is not whether the ideas are wrong or right. The question is who gets to control what ideas are expressed in the public square?”

The court ordered that the Biden administration and other federal agencies “shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly” to coerce social media companies “to remove, delete, suppress or reduce” free speech.

Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine, economics, and health research policy at Stanford University, co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration in the fall of 2020 with professors from Harvard and Oxford.

The epidemiologists advocated for “focused protection” — safeguarding the most vulnerable Americans while cautiously allowing others to function as normally as possible — rather than broad pandemic lockdowns.

The court ordered that the Biden administration and other federal agencies “shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly” to coerce social media companies “to remove, delete, suppress or reduce” free speech.

The court ordered that the Biden administration and other federal agencies “shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly” to coerce social media companies “to remove, delete, suppress or reduce” free speech.

Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine, economics, and health research policy at Stanford University, co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration in the fall of 2020 with professors from Harvard and Oxford.

The epidemiologists advocated for “focused protection” — safeguarding the most vulnerable Americans while cautiously allowing others to function as normally as possible — rather than broad pandemic lockdowns.

“The government had a vast censorship enterprise,” Bhattacharya said. “It was systematically used to threaten and coerce and jawbone and tell all these social media companies, ‘You better listen to us: Censor these people, censor these ideas, or else.’”

It was later revealed that then-NIH director Dr. Francis Collins called for a “swift and devastating takedown” of Bhattacharya and his co-authors — whom Collins dubbed “fringe epidemiologists” — in an email to Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Subsequent reporting from Elon Musk’s so-called Twitter Files — internal documents and communications released by Musk, after he bought the platform, to expose Twitter’s inner workings — revealed that Bhattachrya’s profile was being suppressed on the platform.

 A landmark case in curbing the influence the government has over social media

“It’s akin to the efforts by governments to suppress the printing press when it first was invented, when books represented an enormous threat to power,” Bhattacharya said, referring to efforts by King Henry VIII and the Catholic Church to curb use of the printing press in the 16th century.

“There’s an analogous fight that’s currently going on with social media, which makes it vastly easier for anybody to express their ideas, and very powerful people find that incredibly threatening.”

The September 8 ruling affirmed but narrowed a lower court order, issued on July 4 by US District Judge Terry Doughty, which found that the Biden administration and other federal agencies “engaged in a years-long pressure campaign [on social media outlets] designed to ensure that the censorship aligned with the government’s preferred viewpoints” and that “the platforms, in capitulation to state-sponsored pressure, changed their moderation policies.

Bhattacharya says the first victory, although in a lower court, was the most exciting to him.

“I was just absolutely thrilled, especially to have it on July 4th,” he said. “I think that judge was sending a message by issuing this ruling on July 4th that we’re going to restore free speech in this country.”

The Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court on Thursday — a move that Bhattacharya anticipated.

But he believes it’s “unlikely” the Supreme Court will overturn the Fifth Circuit’s decision.

He feels his is a landmark case in curbing the influence the government has over social media — on matters that extend far beyond just COVID-19 and lockdowns.

“This new technology has created enormous opportunities for people to participate in debate in the public square,” Bhattacharya said. “And I hope that this is the beginning of a legal infrastructure that enables that to happen rather than the opposite, which is a dark age where the government gets to decide what’s true and what’s allowed to be said.”



Biden Cartel Commentary Crime Immigration Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics The Courts The Law

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott accuses Biden administration of cutting razor wire at border.

Hits: 12

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott accuses Biden administration of cutting razor wire at border. Texas National Guard installing more razor wire. The Governor has claimed that the Biden thugs turn around and cut the wire. So more National Guardsman have been sent to replace the wire.

In July, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Texas for installing a buoy barrier, which was designed to curb illegal immigration, on the Rio Grande. The barrier was developed as part of Abbott’s Operation Lone Star.

A federal judge initially told Texas to move the buoys, but the U.S. Court of Appeals stayed that decision. The case is still being deliberated through courts.

Stop the trespass. Border buoys float on the Rio Grande River in Eagle Pass, Texas. (Omar Ornelas / El Paso Times / USA TODAY NETWORK / File / Fox News)



Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial
%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights