Well, Vice President Kamala Harris’s acceptance speech at the convention will be a big deal, and the press will cover it intensely. The fact is, the speech she gave last Friday in North Carolina may be the most important speech of the entire campaign, for reasons I don’t understand, she decided to outline an extraordinarily big government socialist position to take on the question of the price of food, to suggest that the real problem wasn’t that the government was spending too much, that inflation was going up in general, but instead to suggest that somehow people were gouging prices, that corporations were in some sneaky way trying to rip off people. Now the problem with that is that it leads you down a road of suggesting that big government socialism works, and that free enterprise capitalism does not work, and that doesn’t work for politicians, because the average American knows that having a government bureaucrat watch the price of eggs, for the price of milk, for the price of meat, isn’t going to solve anything that, in fact, the real problem with inflation is too much spending, and that’s what made this speech doubly bad, because in this speech in North Carolina, Vice President Harris suggested $1,700,000,000,000

in additional spending. Now, I found that really strange, because the fact is, most Americans, almost 80% think that the government spends too much money, not too little. Most Americans believe that big government deficits increase the price increases, increase inflation and make life harder for the average American. So here you had a moment when the one hand, for the last couple of weeks, Vice President Harris has been running around trying to deny that her record has the San Francisco radicals accurate, trying to suggest that she now has different views, different ideas. And then on Friday, she went out and for reasons I literally can’t understand, decided to give a speech which was more radical, involved more government intervention than anything that Bernie Sanders has ever suggested. And Bernie Sanders is the only self described socialist serving in the US Senate. So if you’re to the left of Bernie Sanders, it’s pretty hard to argue that, in fact, you’re really in an average position. And that gets me to what I think will be the key test of the fall campaign. Are we going to see someone named Kamala Harris who works really hard not to represent the Biden administration, not to represent San Francisco radicalism, or are we going to gradually see vice president Harris tied down to having already been vice president for over 1300

days, and clearly indicating in key speeches like North Carolina that she really is a big government socialist? I think that’s the key test of this presidential campaign and.

Donald Trump has asked the American people if we’re better off now than we were when he was president. Perhaps the second most important question for Americans to ponder when voting starts next month is this, Vice President Harris, are you lying now, or were you lying then? It’s a question that Trump will likely have to ask of the Democrat nominee himself, given corporate media is holding the tank four and has formed a complete protective bubble around Harris. Harris, or at least Harris’s flax since she has largely been silent while letting staffers address questions about her beliefs and agenda. Since being swapped in and coronated as the Democrat party’s presidential nominee, has flip flopped on fracking, decriminalizing so called illegal immigration and providing universal government health care, Medicare for all this from one of, if not the most left wing senators during her time in the upper chamber, and from a person who has served as the number two in arguably the most radically leftist White House in American history, in picking Minnesota Governor Tim waltz as her running mate, she’s embraced someone with an unbelievably radical record like her own, from granting all matter of benefits to illegal aliens to whom he wants to provide a ladder to catapult over any border wall, to tampons and boys bathrooms to the covid Snitch line showing for socialism and allowing BLM riders to Set Minneapolis on fire with Harris promoting a bail fund for the arsonists. How can Harris square her past anti energy, pro invasion, health care system destroying policies and run from the other parts of a record that alienate 10s of millions of Normie Americans and made Joe Biden so unpopular that the party had to jettison him with the positions of candidate Kamala, there are only two possible answers. One is that Kamala Harris is the radical progressive she’s always been poised to make America San Francisco, but recognizing this would be unpalatable to American voters, that she has to lie, obfuscate and evade scrutiny about her true beliefs at all costs. Axio has laid this out explicitly. Its top editor is reporting quote, a big part of the Harris plan is to unapologetically change some of her more liberal positions and claim her White House experience helped change her mind. She’s also fine plucking popular Trump ideas, notably, no tax on tips for service and hospitality workers, popular in Nevada, one of the biggest swing states. Her bet, whatever she says in the small three month window of her snap campaign will be what sticks. Harris knows most people know little about her, so she believes she can define herself, even if it includes flip flops and Co Ops. So in other words, she’s engaging in the most cynical of politics, trying to pull a fast one on the American people and showing complete contempt for us. Axios is printing and the Harris campaign is signaling that they think Americans are idiots. The other possible answer for how Harris can change all of her politically toxic positions is that she has no positions at all. She’s willing to say or do anything at any time because she’s willing to say or do anything to gain power. That is, she’s incredibly ambitious, perhaps dangerously ambitious. Why she so badly wants power is one question This raises, as is, whether we should want someone so power hungry leading us. But another question is, how can you trust that she will stick to any of her commitments at all. She wants to break with Biden on issues on which he’s unpopular. Axios tells us that is running from the Biden Harris agenda she helped implement, but she could just as easily zag after zigging right back to the Biden Harris agenda on steroids. Were she to be elected, you’re not supposed to be able to jettison a candidate for someone who never received a primary vote, who never faced the vetting of an election. You’re not supposed to be able to run for president without sitting for interviews or posting a platform where your website is set up in such a way that it gives the impression you have to make a campaign contribution to find out what the campaign and what the candidate is actually about. You’re not supposed to be able to renounce huge swathes of your record and rebrand on the fly free of any scrutiny or criticism with the media cheerleading it, but this is the operation that the Democrat Party is currently running. They have a press that will firmly do their bidding. Only the Trump campaign ultimately can force any of this to the forefront in this election, and only the American people will be able to render judgment on whether they want to live in the kind of Banana Republic where this bonkers chicanery is treated as normal and legitimate. I.

In picking Tim waltz as her running mate, Kamala Harris has sought to portray him as coach waltz and a friendly public servant. However, Governor waltz has not been friendly to religious liberties or parents who seek to guide the upbringing of their children. The Catholic League of religious and civil rights reports that Walt signed legislation excluding Christian universities with statements of faith from Minnesota’s post secondary enrollment option program. This program allows high school students to enroll at local colleges at no cost to them, and enables the students to receive both high school and college credits during covid 19 lockdowns, waltz banned houses of worship from having gatherings of more than 10 people, even though he had allowed retail stores, casinos, bars, restaurants to open at 50% capacity, and he approved the opening of the Mall of America after Minnesota’s religious leaders said that they would reopen at 33% capacity, waltz backed down and allowed them to open just at that level. In 2023 January, waltz enshrined a sweeping right to abortion in Minnesota law. And in May 2023 he took the more extreme step of repealing Minnesota’s protection for babies born alive following an abortion procedure, effectively legalizing infanticide in certain circumstances. The May 2023 legislation also repealed Minnesota’s informed consent law and eliminated positive alternatives, which is a grant program that provided more than $3 million to pregnancy care centers in Minnesota. In april 2023 Walt signed a bill turning Minnesota into a transgender sanctuary state. The law gives state courts temporary jurisdiction over any child in Minnesota who has, in quote, been unable to obtain gender affirming health care. End quote. So if a child goes to the state to receive so called gender affirming care, the law says that Minnesota would not return the child to his or her parents in a custody dispute, the parent could take the child to Minnesota for such so called care, and the out of state parent would have no recourse in Minnesota courts, the extreme measures Governor waltz enacted closely mirror efforts Harris has pursued at the federal level. In september 2022 Harris praised Democrat attorney generals for taking on crisis pregnancy centers. Now, keep in mind, pregnancy care centers are those that take women help them through a pregnancy that they were not expecting. They do not do abortions whatsoever, but they walk hand in hand with women and their families when they’re in a crisis pregnancy. Vice President Harris supports a federal law that places no limits on abortion, repeals conscious protections for doctors and nurses, and overrides the Religious Freedom Restoration Act on matters relating to abortion. HARRIS and Walt are an extreme team on matters relating to religious liberties and parental rights, something all voters need to know for November, but especially those that have religious convictions.

It is not surprising that there were strong reactions to Elon Musk’s conversation with President Trump on X formally Twitter supporters were no doubt thrilled to see musk, the world’s richest man, founder of important companies, owner of x and self proclaimed defender of free speech, endorse President Trump and engage in friendly conversation. Opponents had plenty to crow about, and did so even on X criticizing Trump and Musk’s policy prescriptions and the softball nature of the format. But truly surprising was the call from journalists and governments to stop or limit the conversation from journalism. A Washington Post reporter asked White House spokeswoman Karine Jean Pierre about the upcoming Trump must conversation and what role the White House or the President has in stopping misinformation or stopping the spread of misinformation to repeat, this is a journalist taking the side of censoring political discourse during a campaign with a candidate for the highest office in the land, and the journalist did not so subtly suggest this to the very administration whose president was and now whose Vice President is running against Donald Trump for Office. The White House response was weak and non committal. On the one hand, noting that x is a private company, but also decrying the evils of misinformation. This was no ringing defense of free speech or press from government. European Commissioner Thierry Breton wrote a letter to Musk the day of the conversation. The letter scolded musk and X for past instances of non compliance with the European Union’s Digital Services Act, and it referenced the upcoming Trump Musk conversation, warning, maybe threatening, that while x had a duty to promote free speech, it also must be mindful that all proportionate and effective mitigation measures are put in place regarding the amplification of harmful content that might increase the risk profile of X and generate detrimental effects on civic discourse and public security. The letter then went on to detail the various consequences and enforcement actions that the Commission might utilize on x again, here’s a government, and in this case, a foreign government, strong arming a platform for airing the trunk must conversation as it might be seen by European users. These reactions to the Trump must conversation come not too long after two Supreme Court decisions, first in the net choice cases, the court did not strike down two states regulation of internet platforms to ensure access, but it did indicate that social media platforms ability to moderate the discussions that go on on their platforms would be strongly protected by the First Amendment. In the Murphy case, the Court considered many instances of federal government agencies urging or threatening the platforms to take down harmful content on vaccines, election, misinformation and other matters. The court did not rule out that these actions of government could be challenged by citizens, but it made it very difficult for anyone to have standing to sue. In other words, governments pushing platforms to limit their posts might not be so easy to stop through the courts. The situation for political speech on social media platforms would seem endangered, but one factor has changed significantly in favor of continued free political discourse on social media. Elon Musk bought Twitter and made a commitment to free speech. Many on the left who admired Musk for his businesses that promoted clean energy and electric cars, now see him as a right winger, and x as a platform changed for the worse, but even if you are not a fan of the new x, the fact that there is a variety of political orientations in the platforms makes it much more likely that all of The platforms will resist government’s push to regulate political speech, and that users of all political stripes will feel as if there’s a place for them on social media. So.

Prime Minister, Netanyahu, speech to the US Congress was very, very important because it laid down a marker. It reminded Americans that our strongest, tightest ally in the Middle East is Israel. Israel is the only functioning, reliable democracy in the region, we have allies who are authoritarian, Egypt, for example, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, but none of them are open and free societies. Israel really is, despite all the tension, despite all the conflict, and Israeli Arabs overwhelmingly prefer to live in Israel rather than in the Palestinian territories. So Israel is a remarkable place. Netanyahu came to the United States at a time of extraordinary danger. On the one hand, they’re still finishing up their war with Hamas, caused by the brutal October 7 attack which 12 150 people were killed, and another 250 were taken hostage. That is gradually grinding down, but at the same time, a war with Hezbollah in the north is really heated up dramatically. Hezbollah is a Iranian funded terrorist group much bigger than Hamas, much better armed than Hamas, and they have taken advantage of Israel’s focus on the south to create a very complicated battlefield in the north. And the Israelis have actually evacuated about 60,000 people from the area close to the border, which has now led to considerable unhappiness from those folks because they want to go back home, and it’s still very dangerous to do so. And so we don’t know yet whether or not this will lead to not bigger war, but Hezbollah is much, much bigger than Hamas, and it would be a much more violent war, one that the Israelis would almost certainly win, but at very considerable cost. Meanwhile, Netanyahu has to deal with the fact that for the very first time, the Houthis, the terrorist group in Yemen, have fired drones at Tel Aviv and have actually taken Israel head on. Earlier, the Houthis were a pain in the neck and they were going after shipping in the Red Sea, but now they’re beginning to sort of go after Israel. And the Israelis, for the very first time, went to Yemen and bombed a major port to send a signal to the Houthis that they can’t keep doing that. I think that Netanyahu visit was at a pivotal moment. I do think it’s important to remember that our fate in Israel’s are very deeply tied together. When the Iranians chant Death to America, they also chant Death to Israel. The desire to wipe out Christians and Jews, the Hamas position, that not a single Jew will remain is, in fact, a direct threat to America and our belief in a free society. So I was glad to see Bibi. He’s an old friend. I’ve known him now for, gosh, almost 40 years, but he faces big, big challenges, and we need to stand shoulder to shoulder with him to make sure that we defeat the enemies of freedom. You.

Is the US government hanging brave whistle blowers out to dry. A new court filing suggests that shamefully, indeed, federal authorities are working to crush those who expose the hyper politicization of our national security and law enforcement apparatus. In the case of IRS whistleblowers, Gary shapely and Joseph Ziegler recall that the IRS agents came forward to expose how law enforcement agencies slow walked, sabotaged and subverted the investigation and prosecution of Hunter Biden and other family members, pertaining to the international influence peddling scheme under which they monetized Joe Biden’s offices to the tune of 10s of millions of dollars, thereby protecting the president, the agents claim they face reprisals internally for coming forward through appropriate channels and ultimately Congress with their lawful disclosures, they’ve also faced multifaceted attacks from Hunter Biden, including in court. One leg of the legal attack comes in a suit Biden filed last fall against the US government, represented by the Justice Department and the IRS in which team Biden claims the whistleblowers and their attorneys made unlawful disclosures of Hunter’s confidential tax information, arguably defaming them perversely. Since Biden is suing the government rather than its employees, the case puts the DOJ and IRS in the position of defending the agents who expose those agencies alleged malfeasance, and who those agencies supposedly punished for it, the IRS pulling Shapley and Ziegler off the case after Biden’s legal team lobbied the DOJ to target them, the agents allege. The US government disputes that the agents wrongfully disclosed confidential information the basis of one of the two counts in the suit consistent with the factual record of the case, suggesting how frivolous this effort targeting the whistleblowers is, but the feds can find that admission to a footnote, instead of arguing to fully dismiss the wrongful disclosure count on those grounds, the government instead has only motioned to partially dismiss The Count, quote, unquote, to the extent Hunter Biden’s team brings the claim based on the alleged wrongful disclosures by the IRS employees as personal attorneys and vowed to answer remaining allegations and raise all available defenses only after the court rules on the partial dismissal because of the obvious conflicts of interest in the case and the absurd and passive posture the government has taken in leaving the whistleblowers twisting in the win. Instead of telling Hunter Biden’s lawyers to go pound sand, Agent Shapley and Ziegler understandably motioned to intervene in the case to defend themselves back in May yet, not only Hunter Biden’s team, but the government opposed that intervention, the government argued that only it, quote, has the right to decide its litigation strategy, which includes the right to decide what arguments to make and when to make them, and argued Shapley and Ziegler lacked standing a new filing in response to both Biden’s and the government’s opposition to that intervention shows the chilling nature of what is at play here in that filing, the agents assert that the IRS opposes intervention in a case where Shapley and Ziegler seek, at the outset, to secure an appropriate and complete dismissal of the lawsuit against the IRS. But instead of taking the position any litigant on the defense side of a civil lawsuit would take, the IRS opposes dismissal and purportedly wants to, quote, wait for a fully developed factual record to present its defenses. In other words, the IRS wants the parties to engage in written discovery and depositions, even if unnecessary to resolve this case in its favor, oddly inviting needless discovery that defendants would normally seek to avoid. Shapley and Zeigler also assert in the filing the inane reality that they made protected whistleblower disclosures to Congress and the very parties against whom these two career federal agents blew the whistle, Hunter Biden the IRS and the Department of Justice’s Tax Division are collectively asking this court to prevent them from defending the clear legality of their actions by intervening as parties in this litigation, as they made clear in their motion to intervene, the case at hand could lead the agents to face any number of professional and reputational harms, should the government not vigorously and successfully defend them part of a compelling argument for standing. Just imagine having an allegedly frivolous case impugning your character and threatening your livelihood brought against you, and that perhaps your worst enemies outside of those who brought the charges are the ones left to defend you. Remember, the government agencies here have been exposed to be corrupt multiple times through the alleged misconduct the agents exposed through rushing to concoct a sham sweetheart plea deal that fell apart to try and make it seem like they weren’t given completely preferential treatment to the Brennan’s family, and then through being forced to prosecute cases against Hunter Biden while the house made their misconduct central to its impeachment inquiry, as Shapley and Ziegler conclude in their latest filing, unless the IRS litigation strategy is not to prevail in this case, it begs.

The question of why the IRS opposes enabling the two people whose conduct is at issue to have a seat at the table that the agents seem to be getting hung out to dry for having come forward at maximum personal and professional risk to blow the whistle represents yet another shameful chapter in this era of weaponized and hyper politicized government, one that will likely deter other whistleblowers from defending the Constitution and the Republic in the future, the.

As a U.S. senator and vice president, Kamala Harris has supported massive government spending that has fueled inflation and contributed to high interest rates on home mortgages and consumer spending. 

She has increased dependence on government and empowered government officials to direct decision making on matters related to education, health care, housing, energy, and economic policy.

Harris has supported President Biden’s reckless border policy and has failed mightily in addressing the “root causes” of mass migration across our southern border. 

As cartels have trafficked millions of people through Latin America, they have caused death and destruction along the way.  

This will likely exacerbate the pressure on our southern border in the years to come.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, a leading progressive champion, recently addressed the situation at the border by telling CNN, 

“Recognize – and I know that Kamala Harris knows this – this is a problem that ultimately has to be solved by Congress. I believe we need to create a pathway to citizenship.”

Progressives have longed to turn America blue and they see mass migration as a means to grant citizenship and voting rights to millions of people who come to the United States illegally, 

bypassing the type of vetting required of people who seek to come through our legal immigration system.  

Despite being a former prosecutor, Harris has recklessly accused police officers of murder when there was no evidence for such accusations. 

Harris described Michael Brown’s 2014 death in Ferguson, Missouri as “murder,” 

years after the Obama Justice Department had cleared the police officer of any wrongdoing, 

and after two Democrat prosecutors in Saint Louis County had investigated and brought no charges against the police officer. 

Harris made the allegation on the fifth anniversary of Michael Brown’s death in 2019 as she was campaigning for the Democrat presidential nomination. 

In 2020, Harris made another unfounded allegation of “murder” after the tragic death of Breonna Taylor in Louisville, Kentucky. 

Harris also helped raise money to bail out rioters in 2020 after they had assaulted Minneapolis police officers and other citizens, 

burned down buildings and caused many millions worth of property damage.

 Tragically, this lawlessness went viral and spread to cities across America.

Having established this record of failure and divisiveness, Kamala Harris now seeks a promotion to President of the United States. 

The American people have a serious decision to make in the months ahead.

JD Vance has been fond of using the derogatory term, childless cat ladies to describe a certain type of woman. And he’s included Kamala Harris in this category. The term is pointlessly insulting and a gross overgeneralization. But that shouldn’t stop us from talking about the topic.
Let’s begin with why Vance’s remarks are inept. And then we’ll talk about why the broader matter of childlessness is important. First, Vance, like me, is a Catholic. He understands that not everyone is called to marriage and parenthood. Some don’t have the disposition, some have a life’s calling that is so consuming that it doesn’t allow for children. In the church, we celebrate our priests, brothers, nuns, and other vocations as noble undertakings, so we should not overgeneralize and condemn the choice of childlessness. Second, people who want a family of their own often end up without one, thanks to misfortune. unchosen childlessness has been on the rise for decades in the US and other Western nations. This is central to America’s baby bust, our low and falling birth rates. Educational inflation is a real problem. And Gone are the factory jobs of old that allowed a high school graduate to become a breadwinner. As a result, young adults spend their entire 20s in school, racking up debt instead of wealth. And thus, they don’t even try to start a family until their 30s. At that point, it’s easy for a woman to accidentally miss her fertile window. Also, our dating culture is broken by apps and by the hyper individualistic transactional mindset that dominates our day. The collapsing community connection makes things harder by taking away a support structure for meeting marrying and staying married. So the child list should not be denigrated. But Vance is correct, that widespread and growing childlessness is a problem. First, Vance uses the term childless cat ladies to warn of a ruling class where the childless are over represented. If the people making and executing our laws shaping our cities and planning our futures do not have in mind, parents and children. They will create a world unresponsive to parents needs no room for strollers, a tax code that doesn’t treat children as humans on walkable neighborhoods built for cars rather than kids. Also, the growth of childlessness reflects a failure of our culture to foster camaraderie, solidarity and meaning. The causes of our baby busts include the collapse of community, waning social trust, spreading isolation, and increased rejection of the idea of lifelong monogamous marriage. These trends are all harmful even aside from their effects on birth rates. Finally, a world with fewer children and fewer parents is a sadder world. Children give us hope for and concern about the future. This is true of our own children and other people’s children.
As fewer Americans have kids, more Americans go through their week without meaningful contact with children. This becomes a more self centered world with less hope, and less concern for the future.
Every society has and frankly needs adults who never become parents. But when that portion is growing, we should ask what we’re doing wrong

August 7 is Purple Heart Day. Now today per board means you were wounded. And so people will automatically assume that that’s what Purple Heart Day cert refers to. But it actually refers to the date and 1782 when General George Washington, created the Order of Merit, President Washington, General Washington at the time, knew that you had to encourage people, that you had some people who risked their lives, who went above and beyond the call, who did their duty no matter what. And you wanted people to recognize that this was important that as you should stand out, the you should be rewarded and recognized. And so he created the Order of Merit, which literally was a Purple Heart, then it was a device you wore. And that’s where the term Purple Heart came from. Now, over time, Purple Hearts began to be given for being wounded. And, of course, in the long period of American conflicts, we have given out many, many Purple Hearts, because in our wars, we had many people wanted. And it became a symbol of somebody who had sacrificed to enrich their lives, who had done what they could to help America. But all of those purple hearts, go back to 1780, to go back to the then commander in chief, George Washington, and a very important concept, which is very American, which is that merit, courage, devotion, doing your duty, should be recognized. And people who live up to that should, in fact, be made important and made to feel important. And I think that’s important because we need to get back to being a country based on merit. We need to get back to your country, we’re doing your job well, is recognized and rewarded. We need to get back to a country where when you go to school, we expect you to study we expect you to attend, and we expect you to learn this concept of merit, which is exactly what George Washington was trying to foster in the Revolutionary Army is central to a healthy free society. So in Purple Heart Day, remember, it isn’t just about those who’ve gotten wounded, serving their country. It’s also originally the concept that when you have merit when you go beyond your duty, when you stand firm, then you, in fact, deserve to be recognized. And that’s why George Washington created the Order of Merit.

In a little notice but critical development, the literal speech, police are reprising their efforts just in time for the 2024 election. That development comes in a report from the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General on DOJ efforts to coordinate information sharing about foreign and malign influence threats to US elections, as we’ve covered previously, in the run up to the 2020 election. The national security apparatus use foreign threats to elections to justify colluding with third party cutouts and big tech companies directly to silence derogatory stories to then Democrat candidate Joe Biden, and dissenting content regarding election integrity and outcomes. Now, according to the OIG report, the DOJ has codified its protocols for reporting purported foreign malign influence information with social media companies and is redoubling its efforts to do so in the run up to the 2024 election. In fact, the FBI has been implementing these standard operating procedures since February, before the relevant Supreme Court case, Murthy V. Missouri was even disposed of the OIG report details what those standard operating procedures look like, including requiring that the FBI identify quote, specific credible in articulable facts that provide high confidence for assessing that the information at issue relates to activity attributable to a foreign government, foreign non state actor, or their proxy engaged in an FMI foreign malign influence operation. Requiring the FBI include a disclaimer explaining it, quote, does not request or expect recipients to take any specific action based on shared information and detailing procedures for how to respond to follow up questions. The report also explains that the FBI will be resuming regular meetings with social media companies regarding foreign malign influence threats, engaging in outreach efforts in coordination with the FBI is foreign influence Task Force, a key cog in censorship activities in 2020, and that senior DOJ officials will also be making the rounds with relevant stakeholders to discuss their information sharing strategy, so called all of this passive information sharing and advisory work solely concerning legitimate foreign attributable influence operations will occur strictly in adherence with the First Amendment. The DOJ assures us but what evidence has it given us to trust the DOJ? The simple question that ought to be asked is whether and to what extent any of the information the national security apparatus shared with social media companies last time around there was ultimately censored would again be shared under the current plan? And whether to what extent the standard operating procedures would curtail and if the other tactics the government employed directly in via cutouts to shut down social media it didn’t like what is to prevent them from working with cutouts in the first place? What kind of enforcement or oversight is there? Why would we trust the FBI to police itself and FBI that groom social media companies to think that Hunter Biden laptop story was foreign disinformation, and refused to disabuse them of that notion, even when it knew was real, leading to the mass censorship of one of the most salient possible stories in the throes of an election. Remember, this is the national security apparatus that brought us Russia gate, a fraud, which sabotage the presidency on grounds of a purported foreign influence operation. Forgive me for lacking in any confidence in security state at the command of an administration that casts up to half the country’s domestic terrorist and feels emboldened, thanks to the courts dithering and Murthy V. Missouri, and Congress’s inability or unwillingness to curtail those activities won’t use the threat of purported foreign influence operations to quash the speech of Americans at disapproves of FBI director Christopher rea may have inadvertently given away the game and a recent hearing before the House Oversight Committee. They’re under questioning from rep. Harriet Hagerman, Director Ray praise the Supreme Court for finding and Murthy view Missouri that there was no evidence the FBI course platforms to take his favorite content down. But the congresswoman corrected him. The court, she argued ruled on standing not the underlying merits of a case in which the court seems intent on ignoring the overwhelming factual record on not ruling on the merits. The posture of our national security apparatus seems clear and to the extent the Feds abuse our rights once again, we likely won’t find out about it until after the damage has been done.