Biden regime goes to war with the First Amendment

“You shouldn’t be banned from one platform and not others for providing ‘misinformation’ out there.”

Jen Psaki, former Israeli surveillance agent, now Biden’s henchwoman

Jen Psaki just suggested that people spreading misinformation be banned from other/all platforms if they're banned from one. pic.twitter.com/SlNXJTXi0I

— jordan (@JordanUhl) July 16, 2021

Does Pelosi’s HR1 Destroy Free Speech in America?

 

I haven’t heard of this “Free Speech Institute” before, but they seem to have their shit together. Recall Pelosi and friends are the ones making it illegal to boycott Israeli products or even talk about it. Something to investigate.

Analysis of H.R. 1 (Part One)

&

ACLU Concurs: ACLU LETTER TO HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE ON H.R. 1

 

Executive Summary

Specifically, H.R. 1 would:

• Unconstitutionally regulate speech that mentions a federal candidate or elected official at any time under a severely vague, subjective, and broad standard that asks whether the speech “promotes,” “attacks,” “opposes,” or “supports” (“PASO”) the candidate or official.
• Force groups to file burdensome and likely duplicative reports with the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) if they sponsor ads that are deemed to PASO the president or members of Congress in an attempt to persuade those officials on policy issues.
• Compel groups to declare on these so-called “campaign-related disbursement” reports that their ads are either “in support of or in opposition” to the elected official mentioned, even if their ads do neither. This form of compulsory speech and forcing organizations to declare their allegiance to or against public officials is unconscionable and unconstitutional.
• Force groups to publicly identify certain donors on these reports for issue ads and on the face of the ads themselves. Faced with the prospect of being inaccurately associated with what, by law, would be considered (unjustifiably, in many or most instances) “campaign” ads in FEC reports and disclaimers, many donors will choose simply not to give to nonprofit groups.
• Subject far more issue ads to burdensome disclaimer requirements, which will coerce groups into truncating their substantive message and make some advertising, especially online, practically impossible.
• Focus public attention on the individuals and donors associated with the sponsoring organizations rather than on the communications’ substantive message, thereby exacerbating the politics of personal destruction and further coarsening political discourse.
• Force organizations that make grants to file their own reports and publicly identify their own donors if an organization is deemed to have “reason to know” that a donee entity has made or will make “campaign-related disbursements.” This vague and subjective standard will greatly increase the legal costs of vetting grants and many groups will simply end grant programs.
• Likely eliminate the ability of many employees to make voluntary contributions through employee-funded PACs, which give employees a voice in the political process with respect to issues that affect their livelihoods.
• Effectively prohibit many domestic subsidiaries, and perhaps most corporations with even a single foreign shareholder with voting shares, from making independent expenditures, contributions to super PACs, or contributions to candidates for state and local office, thus usurping the laws in more than half of the states that allow such contributions.This appears to be a thinly veiled artifice to overturn Citizens United and to unconstitutionally accomplish by legislation what congressional Democrats failed to achieve by constitutional amendment in 2014.

• Disproportionately burden the political speech rights of corporations, thereby ending the long-standing parity in the campaign finance law between corporations and unions.
• Increase regulation of the online speech of American citizens while purporting to address the threat of Russian propaganda.
• Expand the universe of regulated online political speech (by Americans) beyond paid advertising to include, apparently, communications on groups’ or individuals’ own websites and e-mail messages.
• Regulate speech (by Americans) about legislative issues by expanding the definition of “electioneering communications” – historically limited to large-scale TV and radio campaigns targeted to the electorate in a campaign for office – to include online advertising, even if the ads are not targeted in any way at a relevant electorate.
• Impose what is effectively a new public reporting requirement on (American) sponsors of online issue ads by expanding the “public file” requirement for broadcast, cable, and satellite media ads to many online platforms. The public file requirements would compel some of the nation’s leading news sources to publish information, which is likely unconstitutional.Both advertisers and online platforms would be liable for providing and maintaining the information required to be kept in these files, which would increase the costs of online advertising, especially for low-cost grassroots movements. Some of these online outlets may decide to discontinue accepting such ads due to the expense of complying with the requirements.The “public file” also may subject (American) organizers of contentious but important political causes like “Black Lives Matter” and the Tea Party to harassment by opponents or hostile government officials monitoring the content, distribution, and sponsorship of their activities.

• Make broadcast, cable, satellite, and Internet media platforms liable if they allow political advertising by prohibited speakers to slip through, thereby driving up the costs of political advertising, especially for online ads where compliance costs are relatively high.
• Impose inflexible disclaimer requirements on online ads that may make many forms of small, popular, and cost-effective ads off-limits for (American) political advertisers.

New Attorney General a Theocratic Religious Nutcase

 

Trump’s New Attorney General Says Judges Should Have A ‘Biblical View Of Justice’

 

Mad Dog’s Threats Against the World

 

America’s National Defense Is Really Offense

by Philip Giraldi

One of the most bizarre aspects of the report is its breathtaking assumption that “competitors” should be subjected to a potential military response if it is determined that they are in conflict with the strategic goals of the U.S. government. It is far removed from the old-fashioned Constitutional concept that one has armed forces to defend the country against an actual threat involving an attack by hostile forces and instead embraces preventive war, which is clearly an excuse for serial interventions overseas.

Some of the remarks by Mattis relate to China and Russia.  He said that “We face growing threats from revisionist powers as different as China and Russia, nations that seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models – pursuing veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic and security decisions.” There is, however, no evidence that either country is exporting “authoritarian models,” nor are they vetoing anything that they do not perceive as direct and immediate threats frequently orchestrated by Washington, which is intervening in local quarrels thousands of miles away from the U.S. borders. And when it comes to exporting models, who does it more persistently than Washington?

The report goes on to state that Russia and China and rogue regimes like Iran have “…increased efforts short of armed conflict by expanding coercion to new fronts, violating principle of sovereignty, exploiting ambiguity, and deliberately blurring the lines between civil and military goals.” As confusing civil and military is what the United States itself has been doing in Libya, Iraq and, currently, Syria, the allegation might be considered ironic.

Illegal NSA Surveillance Secretly Used to Convict People

 

NSA SECRETLY HELPED CONVICT DEFENDANTS IN U.S. COURTS, CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS REVEAL

Sessions Sued

JEFF SESSIONS SUED IN LANDMARK LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT

In a 90-page Complaint, attorneys representing five plaintiffs maintain that the CSA, in classifying Cannabis as a “Schedule I drug,” is so irrational that it violates the U.S. Constitution.

Long Knives

 

Trump instantly fires anyone who diobeys his unconstitutional commands…

Trump fires acting attorney general

NDAA 2017: Female Draft, Indefinite Detention of US Citizens

Again, for the thinking-impaired, all of this is prior to Trump assuming any power at all…

NDAA 2017 Includes Draft For Women, Indefinite Detention Of American Citizens

The U.S. Congress has passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2017 with provisions that will force women to sign up for potential military draft and continues the practice of indefinite detention.

 

Congress Betrayed You Again Yesterday

 

Despite our best efforts, today Congress passed a budget bill that includes the Cybersecurity Sharing Information Act (CISA) — which legalizes violations of your privacy rights.

 

Sign up for alerts at Freepress.net.

 

NY Times Discovers William Binney (NSA Whistleblower)!

What year is it again?

NSA Phone Sweep Unconstitutional!

ACLU wins in court, but the government will likely ignore it and appeal.

We filed this lawsuit days after Edward Snowden’s first revelations two years ago, challenging the constitutionality of the NSA’s mass collection of Americans’ phone records. This is the first appeals court ruling on the program.

The impact of this ruling will extend far beyond the mass phone records program and call into question the legality of many other government mass surveillance programs – and truly demonstrate the need for systemic reform.

TPP: Greatest Attack on America, Ever

The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). Promoting Global Tyranny Run By Corporations. Here’s How to Stop Them

YELL AT CONGRESS:

• PUBLIC CITIZEN: WRITE YOUR REPRESENTATIVE
• EFF LETTER TO CONGRESS
• FOOD & WATER WATCH LETTER
• DON’T BETRAY DEMOCRACY

(Send a different letter each day.)

This unconstitutional menace is arguably the greatest betrayal in history, but of course there is also the Bush regime’s 9/11, so we essentially live in an age of monumental Machiavellian abominations.

The “Trans Pacific Partnership” would end the USA as a sovereign state. The laws passed by Congress and state governments would be challenged into non-existence by supreme corporations. These multinationals will claim that all regulations that hurt their desired profits are against the rules: labor laws, environmental protections, consumer protections, ANY protections of the citizenry will be abolished over time. It’s the same trend that’s been occurring, but on steroids.

The Constitution says that only our Congress can make laws here, not foreign corporations. This is absurd on its face and arguably treasonous.

Barack Obama is now an enemy of the US, and he–and anyone supporting this TPP sham–should be impeached immediately.

Parts of the TPP won’t be declassified for four years … even if it’s passed:

The TPP Investment Chapter … is classified and supposed to be kept secret for four years after the entry into force of the TPP agreement or, if no agreement is reached, for four years from the close of the negotiations.

Ron Kirk, until recently Mr. Obama’s top trade official, was remarkably candid about why he opposed making the text public: doing so, he suggested to Reuters, would raise such opposition that it could make the deal impossible to sign.

Senator Elizabeth Warren notes:

Supporters of the deal say to me, “They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them, they would be opposed.”

…However, under agreements like the TPP, these provisions apply to and override the laws of modern, stable, developed countries with democratic governance and fair court systems. The corporate representatives negotiating modern trade agreements see such democratically run governments as “burdensome” and chaotic, introducing “uncertainties” and “interfering” or “meddling” with the corporate order. As one supporter of these ISDS provisions put it, they protect corporations from “the waves of madness that occasionally flit through the population.”