The Case for Compensatory Damages From Big Tech’s Partisan Censorship

fter serving in the U.S. Army for more than a decade, I started a media company from my truck with a cell phone. What started as flippant rants I would post on social media turned into a media enterprise that has raked up more than 1 billion views across platforms and has allowed me to become a successful American small business and job creator. Sadly, Big Tech’s partisan censorship is jeopardizing my business and has robbed me of income. I am not the only one, and Big Tech should now be held accountable.

In today’s hyper-partisan political environment, companies like Facebook and Google have stepped in as the self-appointed arbiters of truth and fact. However, in doing so, they have infringed on the First Amendment and cheated American entrepreneurs out of millions—maybe billions.

Media businesses like mine produce content, mostly in the form of videos and podcasts. We generate income from platforms like Facebook and Google (YouTube) who sell advertisers’ ad placement on our content. Before or during one of my rants on Facebook or podcasts on YouTube you may be served an advertisement.

These ads sometimes come in the form of a banner ad and sometimes in the form of a video. This is one way how Big Tech makes money and it is also how content creators like myself make a living.

We do not know much—if anything—about these people, but they get to decide what is “true.” They also have the power to decide what violates their ever-shifting Community Guidelines by applying labels like, “Misleading,” “Missing Context,” and “False.”

If creators are flagged too many times as failing to meet Community Guidelines, they are demonetized. That means they are prevented from making money from their content. The platforms’ algorithms then kick in to suppress the reach of their message. The result: fewer “Likes” and fewer “Shares.” 

So, creators don’t just suffer monetarily, but their First Amendment Rights are stifled. It is as if you’re standing in the middle of a public square, in front of an audience that you have attracted. When Big Tech decides to pull the plug, the majority of the people who were there can no longer hear you, and you can no longer reach them. You may still be standing, but you cannot be heard.

Now, some may say, “Good! There is enough fake information and scams going around the internet, it shouldn’t be encouraged.”

However, what we are talking about is not like the email scams from a Nigerian Prince promising you a billion dollar inheritance or the “copy and paste this message to stop the world from ending.” Instead, we are talking about debatable topics that benefit from open, honest dialogue.

Over the course of the 2020 election, Big Tech’s partisan censorship resulted in an estimated $200,000-$300,000 in lost revenue for my company due to suspensions and demonetizations. Again, I wasn’t peddling conspiracies, though that’s what they wanted you to think—I was merely asking the questions that the media wouldn’t.

For example, I had the audacity to question the origins of COVID-19. 

While the mainstream media was carrying the water for the World Health Organization and the Chinese Communist Party, I believed it was worth questioning that this emerging strain of the coronavirus, a known infectious disease, could have escaped from the Wuhan Center for Emerging Infectious Disease—especially given its first reported cases were in Wuhan. Most Americans recognized this as reasonable, and that’s why it had so much social engagement—but not Big Tech.

Big Tech labeled it as false disinformation, likely because the propagandists at the WHO and CCP deemed it as so. My account was censored. Now, more than a year later, Big Tech is allowing those same questions. Why? Because they have been exposed as legitimate.

I also questioned the effectiveness of masks—not because I hate masks, but because there was legitimate research arguing they weren’t effective. I also doubted Anthony Fauci and, like President Trump, believed there was evidence to support the benefits of Zinc and Hydroxychloroquine as treatments to the disease.

We now know from released emails that Fauci was regularly lying from the podium, masks weren’t as effective as government bureaucrats suggested, and Zinc and Hydroxychloroquine are proving to be extremely effective in the treatment of COVID-19.

I never suggested I was an expert, but I did find it valuable to explore the research and science put forth by scientists and experts that ran contrary to the mainstream narratives. For this, like many others, I was punished and censored.

It wasn’t just me who suffered, it was my family, my editors, and my social media managers who also relied on this income. But more important even than money, was the infringement of our Freedom of Speech. 

Big Tech’s censorship and its prohibition on certain thoughts made our communities less safe, it made America and the world less safe, and it compromised the very foundation of this free Republic.

The damages suffered by content creators and everyday Americans are real and Big Tech companies deserve to be held responsible. I plan on doing just that, whether it be in the courtroom or on the floor of the United State House of Representatives.

How the European Union Could Soon Force America into the ‘Great Reset’ Trap

In June 2020, the World Economic Forum — working alongside officials from large corporations, banks, financial institutions and activist groups — launched a far-reaching initiative that aims to push the “reset” button on the global economy. They ominously called it the “Great Reset,” and since its creation, it has received a massive amount of support from leaders of the ruling class, both here in the United States and around the world.

The Great Reset has two primary components. The first is an expansion of government programs, taxes and regulations, which together affect virtually every industry in the world, from oil and gas to health care and technology.

The second, arguably much more important part of the Reset is the complete alteration of the way most of the world’s largest businesses are evaluated.

In a free-market economy, or even one that heavily relies on markets, businesses are subject to supply and consumer demand. The companies with the best goods and services rise to the top and expand. Poorly run companies eventually contract or even close altogether, freeing up capital and investment for new companies.

Of course, anyone who has been paying attention to public policy and economic developments over the past 50 years knows that a truly free-market system does not exist in America, or most other places. Cronyism, corruption and government manipulation are rampant throughout the U.S. economy, routinely distorting markets and allowing some to unfairly get rich at the expense of others.

Rather than try to improve markets by ridding them of corruption, Great Reset supporters want to double down on cronyism by giving the ruling class — including central banks, academics, government officials, union leaders and corporate titans — greater control over markets.

The way they plan to do this is through something called environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards, which are also sometimes referred to as “sustainable investment,” “inclusive capitalism” or “stakeholder capitalism.”

Under an ESG system, corporations are given scores based on dozens of metrics that go far beyond the quality of a company’s goods and services, its profits and other factors investors and consumers normally consider. With ESG measures in place, businesses are evaluated based on the racial and gender composition of their staff, their carbon footprint, the size of their buildings, how committed they are to fighting climate change and a bunch of other social justice concerns.

After being evaluated, companies are then given (or they self-report) ESG scores that are meant to help investors, regulators and governments have a better understanding of who the “bad” and “good” companies are.

You might be surprised to learn that over the past several years, thousands of companies around the world, including many of the most famous American corporations, have voluntarily adopted ESG scores. One study indicates about 82 percent of all large businesses in the United States already have ESG scores in place.

There are many reasons why businesses have been willing to build substantial ESG systems within their own companies, but the two biggest are money and fear of future government action. Tens of trillions of dollars have already been committed or allocated toward funding ESG businesses and other forms of “sustainable investment,” and investors and financial institutions have repeatedly said in recent months that they will phase out their business relationships with those who don’t support some or all ESG goals.

ESG systems are incredibly worrisome, because those with the power to alter them have the ability to control, or at least significantly influence, society.

When this concern has been brought up in the past, supporters of the Great Reset have said that there is nothing to worry about, because ESG systems are not mandated. Companies and banks are freely choosing to adopt them.

However, the truth is, companies have not embraced ESG systems because they support ESG causes, but rather because they have been coerced to do so, and, even more importantly, because they have known for at least the past year that ESG government mandates were just around the corner. Recent developments in Europe prove these fears were not unfounded.

In March, the Parliament of the European Union passed a resolution that seeks to require nearly all of the EU’s largest companies — and many smaller businesses, too — to adopt and prioritize ESG metrics. And especially important for U.S. businesses and consumers, the resolution would further require that EU companies only work with those who share the European Union’s environmental, social and governance standards.

As the Shearman and Sterling law firm noted in a report about the resolution, “If adopted, all EU Member States will be required to implement the Directive into their national laws. This will result in substantive due diligence requirements being imposed on companies, whether based in the EU or selling their products and services into the EU, across their entire value chain, with potential sanctions for non-compliance.”

It is vital to take note of the term “value chain.” In the resolution, it is defined as “all activities, operations, business relationships and investment chains of an undertaking and includes entities with which the undertaking has a direct or indirect business relationship, upstream and downstream, and which either: (a) supply products, parts of products or services that contribute to the undertaking’s own products or services, or (b) receive products or services from the undertaking.”

This provision would apply to virtually every U.S. business that works in the European Union or has a business relationship with an EU company, giving substantial influence over American society to EU officials.

Although the EU resolution has already been approved in the European Union’s Parliament, it is not yet binding. It first must be formally introduced by the European Commission and the final version approved by representatives of the EU’s member states. However, the support for the resolution in the EU Parliament is a strong indicator that ESG systems could soon become mandated throughout Europe.

This move is straight out of the Great Reset playbook, and, if completely put into place, has the potential to fundamentally transform the world — a stated goal of the highest-profile members of the Reset movement.

This is an important and potentially catastrophic moment for the pro-liberty movement. If Americans and their elected representatives do not push back against the European Union soon, as well as stop efforts to impose ESG systems within America, there will be no way to prevent the Great Reset from becoming a reality.

Hillary Clinton Makes the Case for Why Biden Shouldn’t Meet with Putin

On the same day that President Joe Biden met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Geneva, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton weighed in. In a Wednesday morning interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” the twice-failed presidential candidate wasted no time in calling out Putin and former President Donald Trump, while she spoke more favorably of Biden’s approach to Russia.

Clinton has a long and contentious history with Putin, going back to her support of Russia’s 2011 pro-democracy protests. She characterized the Russian leader as “the great disrupter” of democracy for his alleged interference in the 2016 presidential election, despite the 2019 Mueller Report finding no sufficient evidence of collusion between Putin and the Trump campaign.

Clinton’s comments on Trump, which included calling him a “spokesman for Putin,” suggest that she is not over her 2016 loss. In a tone mimicking Biden’s, she emphasized the need to “reset” United States-Russia relations after the “disaster” of Trump’s presidency.

“The problem is that Trump has elevated [Putin]. Trump, from the very beginning, even when he was running in 2016, lifted up Russia. … I never thought I would see some of what we saw during the four years of the Trump administration,” Clinton said on Wednesday.

Of Biden, Clinton praised his decision to meet Putin one-on-one in Geneva without a joint press conference. She said Biden is a president who “will stand up and defend American interests,” and she called upon Biden to set clearer cybersecurity standards with the Kremlin.

“We’ve got to have some kind of process about cybercrimes and cyberattacks. I thought a number of commentators have made an excellent suggestion — that we look for a Geneva Convention, if you will. Bring the world around what we’re gonna do to protect ourselves and to draw some lines about what’s acceptable when it comes to the use of cyberweapons,” Clinton said on Wednesday.

However, Clinton should recognize that the Biden administration has already missed several opportunities to take a stand against Russian cyberattacks.

On May 7, the Houston-based Colonial Pipeline fell victim to a ransomware attack in which DarkSide, a cybercriminal organization linked to Russia, is believed to be responsible. Biden responded three days after the attack, vaguely stating that the “Russian authorities have some responsibility to deal with this,” when mounting evidence suggests that the Kremlin perpetrated the attack and has no interest in “dealing with” its consequences.

In another win for Putin last month, Biden declined to impose sanctions on Gazprom, the Moscow-based gas company working to construct Nord Stream 2. The controversial pipeline will give Western Europe access to Russian natural gas reserves while providing Russia with greater access to European markets in exchange. Biden has long been opposed to Russia constructing the pipeline, but he indicated on May 25 that imposing sanctions would be counterproductive to America’s interests in Europe.

It’s not like the Biden administration has much of a plan to deal with the cyberattacks in the first place. Earlier this month, Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm admitted that America’s adversaries are enemies capable of cyberattacks at any moment.

“I think that there are very malign actors who are trying even as we speak. There are thousands of attacks on all aspects of the energy sector and the private sector generally. The [JBS] meat plant, for example. It’s happening all the time,” Granholm said earlier this month.

With the Geneva Summit over, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden can talk a big game about “defending American interests.” But getting Vladimir Putin to commit, and keeping him committed in any meaningful way, to the reduction of cybercrime is a task easier said than done.

Notice Something Odd About the NYPD’s Presser on Asian Hate Crimes…Like How It Shreds the Left’s Narrative

There’s been a lot of chatter about the spike in anti-Asian hate crimes. Asian-Americans are being targeted, yes—but the narrative may not be reflective of what liberal media outlets are disseminating. They want us to believe that white supremacy and Donald Trump are to blame. Calling COVID the ‘Wuhan coronavirus’ is what led to this recent spate of attacks. No, the virus came from China. That is a fact. You see the ‘my ethnicity is not a virus’ signs, though that sentiment seems to stop within lefty circles when they want to bash white people. There’s always a boomerang, folks. Whatever liberals dole out, eventually it will come back to split their lip open like a fool with a boomerang. Always. These people have no principles, only feelings that can land you in a lot of trouble. 

The recent NYPD presser on anti-Asian hate crimes shows pictures of the suspects who look rather…nonwhite. I mean when that slide of those who were arrested was shown, there was not a white face on that screen. 

These people of color are reprehensible examples of white nationalism https://t.co/5s2p1nS4sA— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) March 25, 2021

At the NYPD press conference on anti-Asian hate crimes today, they show booking photos of suspects apprehended & those they’re continuing to search for. The hate crime suspects appear to all be people of color. #StopAsianHate pic.twitter.com/rZSwlkagAA— Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) March 25, 2021

This all stems from the horrific mass shooting in Atlanta where Robert Aaron Long shot and killed eight people, many of them Asian women. Cue the white supremacy and hate crime talk, though we don’t know yet why he did this. That’s what Andrew Sullivan noted in his piece on Substack, which relates to the NYPD presser here. We once again see the woke narrative replacing what’s factual. He goes long into the recent spa shootings committed by Long, the infusion of ‘critical race theory,’ which is worth a read, but he also notes that a good chunk of hate crimes committed against Asians in New York City were done by nonwhites. That shreds the white supremacy angle. He does say that Trump’s “China virus” rhetoric fanned the flames. I disagree, but here’s a key passage:

This isn’t in any way to deny increasing bias against Asian-Americans. It’s real and it’s awful. Asians are targeted by elite leftists, who actively discriminate against them in higher education, and attempt to dismantle the merit-based schools where Asian-American students succeed — precisely and only because too many Asians are attending. And Asian-Americans are also often targeted by envious or opportunistic criminal non-whites in their neighborhoods. For Trump to give these forces a top-spin with the “China virus” made things even worse, of course. For a firsthand account of a Chinese family’s experience of violence and harassment, check out this piece.

The more Asian-Americans succeed, the deeper the envy and hostility that can be directed toward them. The National Crime Victimization Survey notes that “the rate of violent crime committed against Asians increased from 8.2 to 16.2 per 1000 persons age 12 or older from 2015 to 2018.” Hate crimes? “Hate crime incidents against Asian Americans had an annual rate of increase of approximately 12% from 2012 to 2014. Although there was a temporary decrease from 2014 to 2015, anti-Asian bias crimes had increased again from 2015 to 2018.” 

Asians are different from other groups in this respect. “Comparing with Black and Hispanic victims, Asian Americans have relatively higher chance to be victimized by non-White offenders (25.5% vs. 1.0% for African Americans and 18.9% for Hispanics). … Asian Americans have higher risk to be persecuted by strangers … are less likely to be offended in their residence … and are more likely to be targeted at school/college.” Of those committing violence against Asians, you discover that 24 percent such attacks are committed by whites; 24 percent are committed by fellow Asians; 7 percent by Hispanics; and 27.5 percent by African-Americans. Do the Kendi math, and you can see why Kendi’s “White Supremacist domestic terror” is not that useful a term for describing anti-Asian violence.

But what about hate crimes specifically? In general, the group disproportionately most likely to commit hate crimes in the US are African-Americans. At 13 percent of the population, African Americans commit 23.9 percent of hate crimes. But hate specifically against Asian-Americans in the era of Trump and Covid? Solid numbers are not yet available for 2020, which is the year that matters here. There’s data, from 1994 to 2014, that finds little racial skew among those committing anti-Asian hate crimes. Hostility comes from every other community pretty equally.

The best data I’ve found for 2020, the salient period for this discussion, are provisional data on complaints and arrests for hate crimes against Asians in New York City, one of two cities which seem to have been most affected. They record 20 such arrests in 2020. Of those 20 offenders, 11 were African-American, two Black-Hispanic, two white, and five white Hispanics. Of the black offenders, a majority were women. The bulk happened last March, and they petered out soon after. If you drill down on some recent incidents in the news in California, and get past the media gloss to the actual mugshots, you also find as many black as white offenders.

This doesn’t prove much either, of course. Anti-Asian bias, like all biases, can infect anyone of any race, and the sample size is small and in one place. But it sure complicates the “white supremacy” case that the mainstream media simply assert as fact.

And that NYPD presser complicated that narrative pretty well.

Black on Asian crime: NBC News Fails Miserably in Getting ‘It’s the Whites Beating Asians’ Narrative Going Again

Stop Asian hate’ tried to get resurrected by NBC News. After weeks of dying due to not fitting the narrative, there’s some brand-new study saying that most perpetrators of anti-Asian violence are white. The headline itself is a doozy and the data is even shoddier (via NBC News):

Janelle Wong, a professor of American Studies at the University of Maryland, College Park, released analysis last week that drew on previously published studies on anti-Asian bias. She found official crime statistics and other studies revealed more than three-quarters of offenders of anti-Asian hate crimes and incidents, from both before and during the pandemic, have been white, contrary to many of the images circulating online.

Wong told NBC Asian America that such dangerous misconceptions about who perpetrates anti-Asian hate incidents can have “long-term consequences for racial solidarity.”

“The way that the media is covering and the way that people are understanding anti-Asian hate at this moment, in some ways, draws attention to these long-standing anti-Asian biases in U.S. society,” Wong said. “But the racist kind of tropes that come along with it — especially that it’s predominantly Black people attacking Asian Americans who are elderly — there’s not really an empirical basis in that.”

[…]

Other studies confirm the findings, Wong wrote. She pointed to separate research from the University of Michigan Virulent Hate Project, which examined media reports about anti-Asian incidents last year and found that upward of 75 percent of news stories identified perpetrators as male and white in instances of physical or verbal assault and harassment when the race of the perpetrator was confirmed. Wong said the numbers could even be an underestimate.

Wait, what?! First, this joke of a story says that we’re not really seeing black people physically assault Asians. There’s no “empirical basis,” and now the reason for this shoddy narrative revival exercise is because…the media says the perpetrators are white. The same media that’s been wrong about everything for years? Also, did you catch the real meaning behind this article? If we don’t do anything, racial solidarity could be at risk. So, lie your ass off about who’s committing Asian hate crimes so we can manufacture a false reality to make us feel better about race in America. That’s not healthy. 

White committing most of the Asian hate crimes is not true. Not even close. Therefore, this narrative died weeks ago, as did the virtue signaling. The Left tried to blame white supremacy and Trump for the spike in Asian hate crimes. And then the people who were caught committing these crimes all turned out to be mostly nonwhite. In fact, the face of white supremacy regarding Asian hate crimes is quite black—literally. How many videos do we have to see, and the suspect not be a white person? It’s a pattern for a reason. It’s why CNN’s control room was puzzled at how to help Black Lives Matter because so many of the suspects of these Asian hate crimes were black. 

It’s all a lie. Those people are really white or something. What a joke.

Govs. Greg Abbott and Doug Ducey Plead with Other States to Help Them Address the Border Crisis

Governors Greg Abbott (R-TX) and Doug Ducey (R-AZ) sent a letter to governors all across the country to send any available law enforcement resources to their states to help with the ongoing border crisis.  

Their calls for help come as apprehensions by U.S. Customs and Border Protection along the U.S.-Mexico border have reached record highs, along with illegal immigrants having an easier time avoiding apprehensions. Abbott launched Operation Lone Star in March, sending Texas state troopers and National Guardsmen south and Ducey also deploying the state’s National Guard to the southern border.

Dangerous substances and firearms are being smuggled across our border. Children are being trafficked. This poses a serious threat to border communities, and all communities across the nation. 2/— Doug Ducey (@dougducey) June 10, 2021

“Securing our border with Mexico is the federal government’s responsibility. But the Biden Administration has proven unwilling or unable to do the job. This failure to enforce federal immigration laws causes banns that spill over into every State,” they wrote. “The cartels will see to it that their deadly fentanyl and human-trafficking victims far and wide.”

Abbott and Ducey noted that since Texas and Arizona are “ground zero” for the current crisis, they are bearing the brunt and have spent a lot of money to address the issue. With other states sending additional manpower south, the two governors wrote they hope they can apprehend more illegal immigrants “before they can cause problems” in other parts of the United States.

“Texas and Arizona have stepped up to secure the border in the federal government’s absence, and now the Emergency Management Assistance Compact gives your State a chance to stand strong with us,” they concluded.

The Myth of Republican Obstructionism

The political media have spent the entire Joe Biden presidency up to this point pressuring holdout moderate Democrats to join the left’s efforts to destroy the legislative filibuster. One way they do this is by cobbling together (Leninist) revisionist histories that cast Republicans as uniquely obstructionist and undemocratic.

CNN’s White House correspondent John Harwood lays out that history in broad strokes: “for Clinton’s 1993 deficit-reduction plan: 0 Republican votes for Obama’s 2010 national health care plan: 0 Republican votes for Biden’s 2021 covid-relief plan: 0 Republican votes the modern GOP response to Democratic governance is total resistance.”

What he fails to mention is that after President Bill Clinton’s “deficit-reduction” bill, the GOP, often in significant numbers, voted for a slew of big policy reforms: 16 Senate Republicans voted for the Family and Medical Leave Act; a telecommunications reform passed 81-18, with only one Republican voting nay; the welfare-reform compromise bill passed 78-21; the Brady Act gun-control bill only passed because of Republican support; the North American Free Trade Agreement passed 73-26; Biden’s crime bill passed 95-4; just to mention a few.

Of course, in those days, parties would bend over backward to compromise when writing wide-ranging bills so they could claim bipartisan support. This was often the case during the George W. Bush years as well. The Patriot Act was a bipartisan bill. No Child Left Behind, co-written by liberal “lion” Sen. Ted Kennedy, passed 87-10 in the Senate.

It was the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 that frayed the political order in ways from which we haven’t recovered. For the first time in contemporary history, a political party unilaterally crammed through a national reform without any buy-in from half the nation. So, while it’s true that not a single Republican supported President Barack Obama’s 2010 “national health care plan,” it’s also true that not a single Democrat has voted for any of the dozens of bills to repeal “Obamacare.”

 Democrat Party’s statue in seattle

Harwood is also right that Biden’s 2021 “covid-relief plan” garnered zero Republican votes. Yet, the CNN correspondent again seems to have forgotten that Democrats filibustered and blocked Republican coronavirus-relief bills dozens of times. You know how many Democrats voted for President Donald Trump’s tax-reform bill? Zero. Democrats filibustered Sen. Tim Scott’s criminal-justice reform bill. They used the filibuster to block funding of Trump’s border wall. They blocked Sen. Ben Sasse’s Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act — a bill that did not restrict abortion but merely compelled doctors to try to save babies who survived them.

Perhaps Harwood is unaware that Trump faced more procedural delays in his four years in office than any president in history — actually, more than all other presidents in history combined. According to a Politico analysis, Bill Clinton faced a total of 15 filibusters by the Senate in his two terms. Obama faced 175 in eight years. Trump faced over 300 in only four.

I’ve noticed that many liberals attempt to circumvent this prickly reality by pre-writing history: “Is there any doubt that the GOP would end the filibuster for good — in a heartbeat — if it served their purposes?” asked ABC News senior national correspondent Terry Moran, rhetorically. Indeed, there is great doubt, considering that Trump had publicly pressed Sen. Mitch McConnell to blow up the legislative filibuster on numerous occasions, and the Senate leader refused.

Let’s not forget either that Democrats blew up the judicial filibuster. And when it backfired, and Republicans followed the new rules Sen. Harry Reid had instituted, Democrats tried to redefine judicial confirmations as “packing the Court.” There is a perpetually evolving set of rules, and the constant is that these rules must benefit Democrats.

It was also Democrats, led by Biden, who blew up the norms of decorum and bipartisanship in the Supreme Court confirmation hearings when they politicized the nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Only three Democrats voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch. Only one Democrat — Sen. Joe Manchin — voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh after Democrats smeared him with their unsubstantiated charges. And not one Democrat voted for Amy Coney Barrett. Five Republicans voted to confirm Elena Kagan, and nine voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor before Mitch McConnell followed the “Biden rule” on Merrick Garland.

There’s really nothing wrong with inaction in Congress if the country is fundamentally at odds over policy — which is clearly the case these days. The system is built — and political parties exist — to stop each other’s excesses. In that regard, the filibuster has been one of the most effective tools in preserving some semblance of proper constitutional governance.

Now, political parties might be right or wrong, but only one clamors to blow up the rules every time it doesn’t get its way. And just because Harwood seems to be under the impression that the only vote that matters in Washington is one that propels liberal initiatives doesn’t entitle him to rewrite history.

Who Is Really Killing American Democracy?

By a vote of 415-14 in the House, with unanimous support in the Senate, Juneteenth, June 19, which commemorates the day in 1865 when news of Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation reached Texas, has been declared a federal holiday.

It is to be called Juneteenth Independence Day.

Prediction: This will become yet another source of societal division as many Black folks celebrate their special Independence Day, and the rest of America continues to celebrate July 4 as Independence Day two weeks later.

Why the pessimism? Consider.

Days before Congress acted, the Randolph, New Jersey, board of education voted to change Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples Day. A backlash ensued, and the board quickly voted to rescind its decision.

Still under fire, the board voted to drop all designated holidays from the school calendar and replace them with the simple notation “Day Off.”

The school board had surrendered, punted, given up on trying to find holidays that the citizens of Randolph might celebrate together.

But the “day off” mandate created another firestorm, and the board is now restoring all the previous holidays, including that of Columbus.

The point: If we Americans cannot even agree on which heroes and holidays are to be celebrated together, does that not tell us something about whether we are really, any longer, one country and one people?

Do we still meet in any way the designation and description of us as the “one united people” that John Jay rendered in The Federalist Papers:

“Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.”

Does that depiction remotely resemble America in 2021?

Today, we don’t even agree on whether Providence exists.

We hear constant worries these days about a clear and present danger to “our democracy” itself. And if democracy requires, as a precondition, a community, a commonality, of religious, cultural, social and moral beliefs, we have to ask whether these necessary ingredients of a democracy still exist in 21st-century America.

Consider what has happened to the holidays that united Americans of the Greatest and Silent Generations.

Christmas and Easter, the great Christian Holy Days and holidays of that era, were expunged a half-century ago from the public schools and the public square — replaced by winter break and spring break.

The Bible, the cross and the Ten Commandments were all expelled as contradicting the secularist commands of our Constitution.

Traditional Christian teachings about homosexuality and abortion, reflected in public law, are now regarded as hallmarks of homophobia, bigotry, sexism and misogyny — i.e., of moral and mental sickness.

Not only do Americans’ views on religion and morality collide, but we also seem ever more rancorously divided now on matters of history and race.

Was Christopher Columbus a heroic navigator and explorer who “discovered” America — or a genocidal racist? Was the colonization of America a great leap forward for civilization and mankind, or the monstrous crime of technically superior European peoples who came to brutally impose their religion, race and rule upon indigenous peoples?

Three of the six Founding Fathers and most of the presidents of the first 60 years of our republic were slave owners: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, John Tyler, James Polk and Zachary Taylor, as well as the legendary senators Henry Clay and John Calhoun.

A number of Americans now believe that Washington and Jefferson should be dynamited off Mount Rushmore at the same time the visages of the three great Confederates — Gen. Robert E. Lee, Gen. Stonewall Jackson and Confederate President Jefferson Davis — are dynamited off Stone Mountain, Georgia.

From all this comes a fundamental question.

Is the left itself — as its cultural and racial revolution dethrones the icons of America’s past, who are still cherished by a majority — irreparably fracturing that national community upon which depends the survival of the democracy they profess to cherish?

Are they themselves imperiling the political system at whose altar they worship?

The country is not the polity. The nation is not the state. Force Americans to choose between the claims of God, faith, family, tribe and country — and the demands of democracy — and you may not like the outcome.

A question needs to be put to the left in America.

If your adversaries in politics are indeed fascists, racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes and bigots, as you describe them, why would, or should, such people accept and embrace your rule over them — simply because you managed to rack up a plurality of ballots in an election?

Free elections to decide who governs are, it is said, the central sacrament of democracy. But why should people who are described with every synonym for “deplorable” not reject the politics of compromise and instead work constantly to overthrow the rule of people who so detest them?

Winston Churchill called democracy “the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried”

Are both sides sticking with democracy — for lack of an alternative?

Ransomware Attacks Are Inevitable. Banning Bitcoin Solves Nothing.

Criminals know how to pick a victim, and COVID-19 provided hackers with the perfect opportunity to ramp up ransomware attacks. As this Government Technology report outlines, hackers began unleashing viruses around the same time Mother Nature (or a lab in Wuhan) began unleashing “her” own virus on the world. With the world knocked off balance, people and businesses left dizzy and disoriented, cybercriminals got to work. Last year, the U.S. saw a 300-percent increase in cybercriminal activity. This year, things have only gotten worse. According to recent research, five ransomware attacks occur with each passing minute. 

Evolution is a natural part of existence, especially within the world of crime. Cybercriminals are becoming more capable of extorting sizable sums of money from major companies. In October of last year, Software AG paid more than $20 million in ransom fees. The recent JBS and Colonial attacks were a little different, however. The cybercriminals demanded bitcoin from their victims. Ask and you shall receive, and they most certainly received.

Who, or more specifically, what is to blame for the rise in cybercrimes, including ransomware attacks? Bitcoin, naturally. Although bitcoin is indeed an attractive payment option for criminals, it’s also an attractive option for non-criminal actors, more than100 million of them worldwide. Should we blame ice-cream and chips for the obesity crisis plaguing the world, or should we perhaps focus on the people consuming the food?

Humans are both the cause and the solution for almost every problem occurring on the planet, and this includes acts of crime. Pointing the figure at bitcoin makes no sense. Why do criminals demand to be paid in cryptocurrency? Because it is attractive and easy to send. These are not bad characteristics. They only become problematic when problematic people get involved.

As Elizabeth Warren’s misinformed comments show, when it comes to narratives of good and evil, a bad guy is always needed. In the case of bitcoin, more specifically, a scapegoat. The attacks on bitcoin are reminiscent of Nancy Reagan’s views on pot. Nuance simply cannot compete with nonsense.

The narrative being shaped around cryptocurrencies, especially bitcoin, is a highly divisive one. On one side, you have the idealists and reformers who see bitcoin as a key that can unlock a better, fairer future. On the other side, you have people, many of whom are misinformed, calling bitcoin every epithet imaginable. Warren Buffet famously called it “rat poison.” However, the whole bitcoin bad narrative doesn’t actually carry any water.

After all, a bread knife can be used to slice a lovely loaf; in the hands of a manic murderer, however, it can be used to inflict unimaginable levels of pain on another human. What bitcoin needs is proper regulation. In the United States alone, 46 million people own bitcoin. That’s almost 1 in 7 people. Bitcoin is a movement, an idea, a powerful one that resonates around the world.

Calls to ban it are as idiotic as they are unfeasible. In the U.S., with or without bitcoin in circulation, ransomware attacks will continue to occur. Instead of scapegoating an exciting new technology, how about focusing on improving cyber defense technologies?

A ban, not that it’s really possible, is like taking antidepressants to fight the depression caused by your marriage, yet still remaining married to the very person causing the depression. Do you really think that a ban on bitcoin will bring an end to ransomware attacks? These styles of attacks have been around for almost 30 years. Today, they are just more sophisticated in nature, as are the ways in which payments are made. Bitcoin is a sign of technological progress. Just because bad actors happen to like it doesn’t take anything away from its potential. 

Ban bitcoin and hackers will simply demand to be paid in a different cryptocurrency. Ok, so ban cryptocurrencies. Again, with more than 10,000 in existence, good luck with that. Even with no cryptocurrencies in circulation, demands from criminals will always exist. Instead of taking antidepressants, how about ending the marriage?

Instead of focusing on fighting the wars of yesteryears, by investing heavily in fighter jets and tanks, how about putting more money into the development of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which receives paltry sums when compared with the United States’ military branch.

Members of the Biden administration fail to acknowledge one simple fact: 

The battlefields of tomorrow will be located in cyberspace, not in the Middle East. Bitcoin is not to blame for the ransomware attacks, myopic mindsets and a lack of foresight are. While the likes of Elizabeth Warren and her colleagues are busy pointing fingers in the wrong direction, cybercriminals are planning the next big attack. Is the U.S. prepared? 

The Supreme Court’s Failures to Act Are Putting America on a Path Toward Tyranny

Rarely does the generation experiencing the actual events and decisions that lead to their nation’s demise fully appreciate the calamitous enormity of their oversight until sometime after their culture’s destruction has been rendered incurable. Largely it is not due so much to their negligence as it is to most of them being too preoccupied with simply living and making a living for them to fully appreciate the significance of the events that are leading them into a slow descent toward eventual totalitarianism. 

Perhaps that would explain why, in just the first four months of 2021, the Supreme Court issued four decisions—or, perhaps better viewed as non-decisions—that should have caused all legitimately patriotic Americans to be alarmed and called to action … but did not seem to.

Only a few weeks ago, without offering any substantive explanation, the Court summarily refused to even look at—much less, seriously consider—any of the evidence of the 2020 election irregularities offered by attorney Sidney Powell and othersEvidently, the Supreme Court of the United States of America was not interested in doing what it could—and should—to let America know decisively whether or not its presidential election had been shamelessly stolen by those now in power. 

Why would they not do this? 

Perhaps the answer is best revealed by the fact that, at the same time, the Court was also apparently too busy to halt a New York prosecutor from obtaining former President Trump’s tax returns. The practical effect of which was for SCOTUS to give that prosecutor an assist with his unconstitutional effort to search for any crime that might make President Trump’s ouster from office permanent. 

Clearly, these two SCOTUS decisions alone evidence the fact that the agenda of the Justices have become politically driven. 

But it doesn’t end there.

Two weeks later, the Supreme Court—again without explanation—summarily refused to reverse the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ denial of Judicial Watch’s request that it be allowed to take the deposition of a member of this country’s ruling political elite—Hillary Rodham Clinton. At the end of the day, Judicial Watch was only asking the Supreme Court to uphold the Rule of Law by finding that all Americans—including elites like Hillary Clinton—are to be treated equally under the law. Instead, however, the Supreme Court, unfortunately—and inexplicably—declined the opportunity to do even this. 

Then this week, SCOTUS put the final nail in the coffin containing the GOP’s 2020 election disputes with its denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari in Bognet v. Dagraffenreid. Again, it refused to rule on whether a state’s courts are qualified or not under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution to modify that state’s presidential election laws. In short, whether Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution by usurping the state legislature’s authority to extend the time allowed for counting mail-in ballots is apparently not an issue worthy of this SCOTUS’s time. 

From such glaring displays of indefensible Supreme Court inaction, the following incontrovertible truths have been set out in plain view before the nation’s very eyes: 

1. The Supreme Court today is thoroughly politicized … and thus, corrupt; 

2. In America, the Rule of Law … is now dead; and

3. Worse yet, by these decisions, America’s Supreme Court has put on open display its utter disregardand absolute contemptfor whatever the American people may think about the future unavailability of equal justice in a nation that once promised that such justice would be available to all.  

Such truths should be cause for greater alarm for the American people than even the now almost Orwellian silence of John Durham. Consider the following recent words of attorney Sidney Powell: 

“The Supreme Court’s failure to date to address the massive election fraud and multiple constitutional violations that wrought a coup of the presidency of the greatest country in world history completes the implosion of each of our three branches of government into the rubble of a sinkhole of corruption. It is an absolute tragedy for the Rule of Law, the future of the Republic, and all freedom-loving people around the world.”

She is not overstating the matter in the least. An American government unleashed from the constraints set in place by the Rule of Law can only be headed in one direction: toward some form of centralized dictatorship that is limited only by the whims of those in power—i.e. a tyranny. That place where corrupted institutions of government exist to serve only the purposes of those in power, who, in turn, are free to use their power unfettered by the Rule of Law to command the masses they rule to submit completely to the diktats of the state. 

For instance, a state that would order its people to accommodate its importation of a new class of indentured slaves is encouraging to enter across the borders of this country that it has opened at the same time that state is endeavoring to seize the weapons of anybody already here—i.e. patriotic citizens—who might object. And all while the state uses an imagined pretense—e.g., a fraudulently hyped pandemic—to terminate the rights of those patriotic Americans to engage in commerce, speak freely, and even freely assemble to either peacefully protest or even worship. A place where unquestioned obedience is expected and dissent from any of the state’s propaganda narratives can expect to be silenced, censored, shadow-banned and de-platformed. 

Sound familiar? 

It should.

It is where America is today.

A place where all of us—both conservatives and liberals— would do well to take off their government-mandated masks long enough to read out loud and seriously reflect upon the following words of a woman—Ayn Rand—who knew more than just a little about how to identify a tyranny: 

“When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing—When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors—When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them but protect them against you—When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice—You may know that your society is doomed.”

Leaving America to ask: does America still have the option of reversing course, or in its march toward some form of tyranny, has it already put the Rubicon in its rear-view mirror? 

After all, how is a nation supposed to lawfully remedy the corrupt silence of a politicized Supreme Court from which there are NO readily apparent peaceful means for appeal?