This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Supreme Court heard arguments about a Biden regime agenda to push, using the influence of the federal government, and social media companies to censor ideas and comments that the administration dislikes.
And Jenin Younes, litigation counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which brought the dispute to the court system, said it's just not allowed under the Constitution for politicians to pick "disfavored" statements and order them suppressed.
"Our clients, who include top doctors and scientists, were censored for social media posts that turned out to be factually accurate, depriving the public of valuable perspectives during a public health crisis. We’re optimistic that the majority will look at the record and recognize that this was a sprawling government censorship enterprise without precedent in this country and that this cannot be permitted to continue if the First Amendment is to survive," Younes said.
A ruling in the case isn't expected from the court for some time, but it likely will have a massive impact on the concept of free speech and the First Amendment across America.
The trial court judge likened the government's scheming in the case to the Orwellian "Ministry of Truth" that propagated nothing but lies.
Many of the details of that ruling were affirmed by an appeals court, but the government, insisting on the right to determine the information to which people have access, took it to the Supreme Court.
Much of the censorship at the time concerned the COVID-19 pandemic and the experimental shots that were developed and given to millions of people at the time.
That included giving shots to children, who had a very high resistance to COVID.
Further, evidence now has confirmed a multitude of side effects of the COVID-19 shots, up to and including death.
"I stand here representing the hundreds of millions of Americans who are not medical professionals, academics, or journalists but who simply knew that what was happening in America was not right. We went to social media to voice our opinions and were silenced by government employees who bullied social media snowflakes into silencing our voices. The government has no authority to police our opinions; they are protected speech. I would argue the government is the source of misinformation, and it is our responsibility as Americans to make every effort to correct that," said Jill Hines, one of the plaintiffs.
A report from NCLA said the case is Murthy v. Missouri, and the high court considered whether to affirm a historic preliminary injunction granted by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
That has been temporarily "stayed," but it would bar officials from the White House, CDC, FBI, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and Surgeon General’s office from coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech.
It originally sas U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty who blasted the government for its program to blacklist, shadow-ban, de-boost, throttle and suspend social media activity by those who disagreed with the Biden administration's chosen, and sometimes faulty, opinions on COVID.
"This censorship regime has successfully suppressed perspectives contradicting government-approved views on hotly disputed topics such as whether natural immunity to CVID-19 exists, the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, the virus’s origins, and mask mandate efficacy," the legal team said.
NCLA has pointed out that the First Amendment’s text forbids "abridging" the freedom of speech, "meaning the government’s scheme violates the Constitution even when it encourages social media platforms to suppress legal speech without coercing them."
Other plaintiffs are Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Aaron Kheriaty, and Martin Kulldorff.
"Just down the street, the Constitution of the United States sits in the Archives. If Americans don’t stand up and defend our constitutional rights, it is just a piece of paper. I am honored to be here with NCLA and my co-plaintiffs to defend the constitutional right of free speech, which has been systematically suppressed by the federal government. I trust that the Supreme Court will do the right thing and uphold the injunction against government censorship of constitutionally protected speech," Kheriaty said.
Mark Chenoweth, president of the NCLA, said, "The First Amendment does not allow the government to abridge speech based on whether the speech is true or false. That is what the government did here, and if that is allowed then the First Amendment is a dead letter"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It looks like NFL quarterback Aaron Rodgers will not be the presidential running mate of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. after all.
A published report by Mediaite indicates the independent candidate is planning to select Nicole Shanahan, a California-based attorney and entrepreneur once married to Google co-founder Sergey Brin.
The report said consideration of the New York Jets football star as the VP pick "prompted concerns among donors to the campaign."
Shanahan was behind Kennedy's Super Bowl commercial and is now expected to be named RFK Jr.'s choice.
"They align on numerous issues," a source close to the campaign said of Kennedy and Shanahan.
"The campaign is also looking for a candidate who can help finance the ballot access initiative."
"She might be infusing millions of dollars into the campaign to help fund the ballot initiative, which makes her attractive financially; however, she lacks the qualifications to do the job."
"Mediaite found that the domain www.kennedyshanahan.com was registered on March 13th, and verified the donation page is live and accepting donations at the subdomain pay.kennedyshanahan.com," the website said.
"Mediaite donated $1 through that donation page to discover the domain was registered by Kennedy senior advisor Link Lipsitz," it noted.
Meanwhile, Kennedy's campaign is keeping tight-lipped on any formal decision.
"There has been a lot of speculation in the media about Mr. Kennedy’s pick of vice presidential running mate,” his press office told the New York Post in a written statement.
"The official announcement will be on March 26 in Oakland, CA. We hope to see you there."
Shanahan, 38, told the New York Times she donated $4 million to the American Values 2024 super PAC, to help fund the $7 million 30-second commercial during this year's Super Bowl.
"While claiming not to be an 'anti-vaxxer,' she said she shared Kennedy's constant attacks on vaccines. She also describes herself as a progressive who cares about children's health," the Post reported.
According to records obtained by the New York Times, Shanahan donated to Joe Biden's 2020 campaign and gave a maximum of $6,600 to Kennedy's campaign in May of last year while he was still seeking the Democratic nomination.
The Post reported:
The Bay Area attorney was married to Google’s Brin in 2018 – but they officially divorced last summer after she was reportedly romantically involved with Tesla CEO Elon Musk.
Musk and Brin were previously longtime friends, and Musk frequently stayed over at Brin’s home, the Wall Street Journal reported in 2022.
However, the two reportedly had a falling out following Musk and Shanahan’s brief fling in December 2021, when Brin requested that his financial advisers sell his personal investments in Musk’s companies.
Musk and Shanahan have denied the allegations.
"This is total bs," Musk posted on X in July 2022, in response to a user who shared the WSJ article.
"I've only seen Nicole twice in three years, both times with many other people around. Nothing romantic," he added.
Brin filed for a dissolution of marriage from Shanahan in January 2022. The couple shares a young daughter together, according to People.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
During the 2020 presidential race, Mark Zuckerberg handed out, through organizations like the partisan-founded Center for Tech and Civic Life, some $400 million that essentially was used by many local election officials to recruit Joe Biden voters.
Never before in American elections had such a richly funded influence operation been conducted, and some states reacted by banning the injection of private money into those public election processes.
But a report compiled by The Federalist shows that CTCL still is trying to influence election results, only in a different way.
The report explains there's a series of webinars posted on CTCL's website that lecture election officials about working with leftist "fact-checking" special interest groups and putting a bull's-eye on "disfavored" speech.
"The series also instructed administrators on how to 'persuade' elected officials to align with their policy preferences and on 'cultivating relationships' with friendly journalists," The Federalist reported.
It was CTCL Training Associate Christian Franco who explained, in the report, "Policymaking has been deeply influenced by misinformation, and democratic norms are being threatened. As a result, the list of every election official’s responsibilities is growing."
The Zuckerbuck election influence operation is considered by many, along with the FBI's interference, to have turned the results in 2020 from President Trump to Joe Biden. The FBI's agenda included warning media companies to suppress accurate but damaging information being reported about Biden family scandals, and subsequent polling shows that likely gave Biden the victory.
During this 2024 election cycle, Democrats have created, often out of "evidence" never before considered for use in a criminal case, a long list of charges against Trump, and they are trying to obtain at least one conviction before the November vote, so they can label Trump as "convicted."
Polls show he actually is leading Biden in just about every state.
The Federalist reports that CTCL was founded by several people, Tiana Epps-Johnson, Whitney May, and Donny Bridges, all coming from "the New Organizing Institute."
The Washington Post says that’s "the Democratic Party’s Hogwarts for Digital Wizardry."
The report explains how CTCL developed a plan to get around state bans on private funds in elections by setting up a program to bring "together election officials, nonprofits, counties, cities, and states" to demand $20 billion in congressional funding for election offices.
A spokeswoman said she knows advocacy will be needed to "fill everyone’s budget gaps," but Biden already has been at the trough, issuing executive orders that every federal agency and department work to recruit voters, often tasking federal bureaucrats with working with leftist and Democrat organizations.
One of Franco's suggestions is to find "allied groups that can help you design outreach strategies, hire lobbyists, build partnerships, raise funds, [and] conduct trainings."
Recommended as "allied" groups are "left-wing groups like the Democracy Fund and Rock the Vote," the report said.
Josh Goldman, a manager at CTCL, said it is election "experts" whose voices must be considered.
Because others are offering "misinformation."
"That’s not good for you, your office, your voters, or our democracy," he said.
Kurt Sampsel, another manager for CTCL, suggested whose information should be valued.
"Trump’s statements on voting by mail, voter fraud, and whether or not he’ll accept the results of the election have had the effect of undermining confidence in our democratic processes on just a bigger scale than we’ve ever seen before," he said in the report.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The federal government has had two cases involving the possession of classified documents in the headlines after it decided simply to drop the issue of the fact that former Vice President Mike Pence was involved in a similar situation.
One is that President Donald Trump had documents in his Florida home, paperwork from his presidency that he had the authority to declassify.
The other is Joe Biden's possession in multiple locations, including his home and an unsecured garage, of boxes of classified papers that he used in helping a ghostwriter work on a project for which he was paid millions.
The case against Trump resulted in a long list of felony charges; the special counsel reviewing Biden's probable criminal acts said he wouldn't recommend charging him because of his failing memory and other "diminished" capabilities.
Now a poll shows that American voters clearly see that as a double standard, a favorable treatment of one person and an attack on another not because of what they did but because of who they are.
"Only those responding with the first two answers, 'very closely' or 'somewhat closely,' were counted. That totaled 568 people or roughly 40% of all those who took the poll."
Sixty-nine percent said it was "lenient" for special counsel Robert Hur to recommend against charging Biden over his actions.
The poll said, "Here’s where it gets interesting. Among Democrats, 69% called Biden’s treatment 'lenient,' while 27% disagreed. But only 50% of Republicans agreed, while 46% disagreed. Independents broke 53% agree, 39% disagree."
Then a follow-up asked voters to compare the cases, and 62% said the DOJ was "more lenient" to Biden than President Trump. Even a plurality of Democrats, 47%, saw that.
"Across all political parties, there was either a plurality or outright majority saying that DOJ had played favorites in how it charged the two likely candidates for president. For Democrats, it was 47% saying Biden’s treatment was more lenient than Trump’s, while 33% said Trump’s treatment was more lenient. For Republicans, the same questions elicited 79% saying Biden got more lenient treatment, versus just 16% saying Trump did. Independents came in at 59% Biden and 21% Trump," the polling explained.
"In short, Americans focused on Hur’s investigation of Biden’s mishandling of classified documents are mostly convinced that the Department of Justice’s efforts show a clear double standard when applying federal law in this case," the report said.
Further, the report said, the DOJ refused to hand over documents from Hur's investigation of Biden that Congress considering a Biden impeachment case requested.
So the poll asked, "To what extent do you agree or disagree? The transcript of Special Counsel Hur’s interview with President Biden must be released to the public."
A full 85% said they agreed strongly or somewhat, and that included a large majority of Democrats, Republicans, and independents.
Meanwhile, the disparity remains: No charges are likely against Biden over his willful retention of classified documents, which he did not, at the time, have authority to declassify, while Trump's case is moving forward in federal court.
And that already is giving rise to defense arguments that Trump is being "selectively prosecuted," the report said. "Americans clearly see an imbalance in how Biden and Trump have been treated in this case, which could well have an impact on the outcome of the 2024 election."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Details obtained by congressional investigators show that Hunter Biden tried to help a Chinese company buy Westinghouse, the American company that is the nation's premier maker of nuclear reactors.
A report from Just the News documents the idea came up while Joe Biden was vice president to Barack Obama, and Hunter Biden and his business partners tried to smooth the path for the Chinese company CEFC to buy control of Westinghouse.
The evidence includes a memo confirming Hunter Biden was "directly involved" in emails and communications regarding the plans in 2016.
It reveals that the idea was to "exploit the future first son's access to power and his family reputation to make Washington and Beijing comfortable" with what obviously would be a controversial plan.
The report said the idea apparently was to hide a Chinese purchase by CEFC Energy of Westinghouse behind intermediary companies.
"In summary, utilizing (sic) the U.S. face of Westinghouse, combined with the economic power of CEFC (China) is the perfect solution to control this global sector," said James Gilliar, who worked with Hunter Biden on projects, to CEFC in a memo.
Westinghouse at the time was based in the U.S. but owned by Toshiba, of Japan, and the report said it was a "darling" of the nuclear industry because of its AP1000 reactor which was described as smaller and more advanced.
At the time it faced financial hurdles because of the costs of a Georgia project.
Just the News said investigators in Congress have obtained memos and testimony about the idea of having Hunter Biden help CEFC expand its influence in the nuclear energy industry by gaining control of Westinghouse.
"One of Hunter Biden's former business partners, Rob Walker, told Congress the future first son was involved, providing a letter to make the Chinese comfortable with the plan. Hunter Biden 'had an interesting last name that would probably get people in the door,' Walker explained to lawmakers," the report said.
It was this same CEFC that was referenced in emails suggesting Joe Biden might get a 10% stake and evidence that Joe Biden met with CEFC officials in 2017 before "nearly $8 million in money flowed from CEFC to companies tied to the Biden family," the report said.
Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., commented to the John Solomon Reports podcast, "The Biden family was all about money. There was no sense of honor or no sense of protection in the country. It was to protect the brand, which was the Biden name. Joe Biden. don't know if I've ever seen grifters more than the Biden family."
The report said some evidence about the possible CEFC-Westinghouse link was from a laptop Hunter Biden abandoned at a repair shop.
It appears Gilliar and his partners, Hunter Biden and Walker, discussed in one email a "CEFC / [Westinghouse]" deal, the report said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
One of the ways Joe Biden has done many of the things he's accomplished in the White House has been through changing the rules.
Ballot boxes? They used to be banned but now they're promoted. Environment limits, energy usage, speech limits, and more all have been in the bull's-eye for Biden.
In fact, his administration has been the push behind the 188,221 pages of regulations in the Federal Register in the last year.
But a report by columnist Paul Bedard in the Washington Examiner says Congress wants to have some say on the issue.
Republicans in Congress have proposed in their bill for the government's coming budget to throw a wrench in Biden's scheme.
The problem with the rules is that they often are imposed by partisan bureaucrats without any input from Congress.
"This problem has only gotten worse under President Biden, who has spent over $1.5 trillion through various unilateral and even unconstitutional executive actions," explains the House plan.
It proposes to eliminate "all new regulations" created during Biden's term, and permanently trash "those shelved during the coronavirus crisis," the report explained.
It is Wayne Crews, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who noted Washington feeds on regulations.
The House Budget Committee's bill noted spending on regulatory agencies has increased from $4 billion in 1960 to almost $70 billion by 2021. "The regulatory army has grown from 57,109 to 288,409 and the pages of rules published in the Federal Register have jumped from 22,877 to 188,221 a year," the Examiner report said.
"It’s hard to argue with the call 'to examine ways to relieve the burdens of overregulation throughout the federal government,' and 'to ensure that once harmful and costly regulations are repealed,'" Crews said.
The report noted President Donald Trump "has promised to repeal many Biden regulations if he is elected. During his first term, Trump required that at least two regulations be killed for every new one his team sought."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Dallas Jenkins, the creator and director of the super-popular crowdfunded Christian show "The Chosen" announced on Sunday what he's calling "unfortunate news."
"Words do matter, and these issues are of vital importance. In fact, they couldn't really be more important about the future of our company and our show," Jenkins said in an online video.
"I won't sugarcoat it. I do have some unfortunate news."
"We cannot release Season 4 to streaming now and there will be a delay – a delay longer than we anticipated and hoped for."
Season 4 has been playing in theaters since last month, but this announcement means fans waiting to see the latest episodes for free will have to wait.
"There are some legal matters that we are dealing with right now that are hopefully being resolved. The goal is to have them resolved so that we can long-term and short-term better serve you, ensure the show remains free forever and gets to over a billion people and also allows us to be sustainable forever," Jenkins explained.
"We are coming up with ways to give this show to you quicker once this is resolved which I will share shortly. I unfortunately can't share many more details about the legal situation than I am right now but I can assure you that we are doing everything in our power to get this taken care of as soon as possible."
"The Chosen" combines accurate Bible events with imagined, yet plausible, scenarios of what life was like for Jesus and His followers during the first century.
Jenkins then reminded viewers of a few "sobering facts."
"We don't have a studio or a network with billions of dollars at their disposal," he began.
"In order for our show to be free ... you have to be reminded that this costs tens of millions of dollars minimum every year."
"We are one of the most watched shows in the world ... but fewer than 5% of the viewers pay for it or donate to the Come & See Foundation."
"A movie released to theaters makes so much more in one month than we do. Not only in one month, but sometimes in a year."
"With a movie, the money that comes in can be kept. With us, a show that has multiple seasons, we must keep spending money that is generated for the next season. As I talk to you right now, we have three seasons left, along with all the translating and marketing and keeping the company going just for this show alone."
"It is extremely expensive to be free. And without us getting creative, without its figuring out ways to generate income so that we can be sustainable and profit and have a career our previous path wasn't proving to be sustainable."
Jenkins noted he's heard some criticism that they're doing this theatrical release just for the money, and delaying the streaming to make as much money as they can.
"I wish we made enough money on the theatrical [release] to justify that accusation," he responded.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal lawsuit against a Nevada school system over a teacher's demands that a student read an offensive, sexually explicit, and obscene script – written by another student – is continuing.
The American Center for Law and Justice reports the court denied in part the school's demands that the case be dismissed.
The decision was the "first step" toward a victory "in protecting students from profane, sexually explicit, and obscene material in the classroom."
The issue is the parents' fight against the district where a teacher "forced their child to perform a pornographic script, lied to the parents, and then prohibited the mother from reading the script given to her child before the school board," the ACLJ reported.
"Our clients’ daughter, who was 15 at the time, was required to perform a sexually explicit monologue prepared by another student, and edited by the teacher, before the entire class."
The ACLJ posted part of the monologue – edited – which readers may find offensive:
It began, "I don’t love you. It’s not you, it’s just (looks down) your d***. I don’t like your d*** or any d*** in that case."
It continues with "progressively increasing profanity and description of sexual acts."
The parents "tried several different avenues to bring their concerns to the school but found it unresponsive to their requests and complaints. Ultimately, a lawsuit was filed against the school district, and the ACLJ, alongside Lex Tecnica Ltd. (a firm committed to protecting students, parents, and teachers from the Clark County School District), represented this family in federal court," the ACLJ said.
The case charges the school with compelling the student to read the offensive script which "lacked a legitimate pedagogical purpose."
The case continues but the intermediate victory is "a significant win for parental rights, as courts are generally unwilling to interfere with teachers’ decisions on a student’s education and curriculum content," the report said.
In their arguments, the court noted, school officials were unable to "point to any case that holds that courts must simply take schools at their word that every assignment fulfills a legitimate purpose merely because it was on the curriculum, particularly in a situation like this one, in which the type of language contained in that curriculum is similar to language which the Supreme Court has held is a school’s prerogative to proscribe."
WND reported when the case began that the student was forced to read to a class the script that the school itself later said was "too explicit to be read in public" when a parent tried to give the details to the school board.
The school board shut off the mother's microphone as she was trying to read the script.
The teacher made the young student's grade dependent on her "performing the pornographic monologue."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Dana Carvey, the "Saturday Night Live" legend most famous for his "Church Lady" skits and impressions of former President George H.W. Bush in the 1980s and '90s, is now getting rave reviews for his impersonation of Joe Biden's numerous stances on the border crisis.
Carvey was discussing the issue with fellow "SNL" veteran David Spade during a Superfly podcast this week, and the video is going viral.
Carvey told Spade how Biden initially denied any border crisis and then changed his tune once the public erupted with backlash.
"I started with Biden, 'cause the border is all the rage now, everyone’s crazy for the border. So I did Biden three years ago, he's at a press conference, you know," Carvey began.
Carvey then went into his impression of Biden saying:
"First of all, let's get our facts straight. There's no crisis at the border. C'mon."
"And [the press goes], 'How do you know, sir?'" he continues.
He then holds up a sheet of paper.
"'Cause it says so on the piece of paper! Says it on the paper right there."
"And then recently everyone wants to close the border. Everyone's screaming and Biden's up there, 'I'll close the border harder than anyone's ever closed the border! Cause I know how to close the border. C'mon Jack!'
"But last time ... Get your facts straight! I'll beat the hell outta ya."
"Whattaya dog-pace pony shoulder? C'mon! Let's do some push-ups! I'll close the border like nobody's ever closed the border – the border patrol – the border – can't believe it's not butter!"
Between X and YouTube, the video has close to 100,000 views, with comments including:
"Spot on!"
"Priceless!"
"Not quite bumbling enough."
"Tremendous."
"Duuuude...listening to this for the umpteenth time - my sides are killing me from laughing so hard -
Maybe Dana should have done the SOTU; would've been a helluva lot more fun!"
"Thanks, Dana and David for the giggles! Next do a skit that starts with a bike ride and a fall, show him walking in the sand at the beach, while eating an ice cream cone and mumbling Bidoisms along the way to the shore. Perhaps a wave might knock him down? Perfect day!"
"I hope Dana knows how well-loved he is. Absolute class."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A new pro-Trump ad spins off of legendary Paul Harvey's "If I Were the Devil," only this time the character remaking the world in "deep state."
A report at The Gateway Pundit notes it's a creation of the Dilley Team for Trump and was retweeted by Citizen Free Press.
It states:
If I was the deep state, and I wanted to destroy America, I would rig the election with a puppet candidate, one that was so compromised that they would never say a word about it.
I would create a false flag that allows for mail in ballots.
I would be in charge of the ballot counting machines.
I would create a false flag to blame all who question the results of the election.
If I was the deep state, I would prosecute anyone that went against me.
I would sue and prosecute anyone that spoke up about the fraudulent election.
I would use my powers to shut down all your Internet businesses and bankrupt you.
If I was the deep state, I would make everyone an example why you should never question a democrat ever winning an election.
I would imprison my foes.
I would use my corrupt DAs and blackmailed judges to destroy you.
I would make sure all crimes I ever committed never happened.
I would prosecute my biggest competition.
I would make sure they could never run for office ever again.
If I was the deep state, I would convince everyone that Ukraine Nazis were good and women are men.
If I was the deep state, I would own every politician that mattered.
If I was the deep state, I would push my pedophilia ambitions on you.
If I was the deep state, you’d question your sexual identity, but not the medical establishment.
If I was the deep state, you would fear to ever resist me.
If I was the deep state, you would wish I was really the devil.
If I was the deep state, I would say mission accomplished.