Trump Shouldn’t Hire Kristi Noem, Or Anyone Else, To Run DHS. He Should Abolish It
DHS was supposed to protect us from foreign terrorist attacks. Instead it has become an instrument of censorship and propaganda.
The Biden administration has never been a fan of political dissidents, and RFK Jr. is living proof.
“Thirty-seven hours after he took the oath of office, President Biden’s White House opened up a portal for the FBI to begin to have access to social media posts on all the different social media sites,” RFK explained in an interview with Tucker Carlson.
“The FBI then invited in the CIA, DHS, the IRS, and CISA. CISA is this new agency that is the center of the censorship industrial complex that is in charge, making sure Americans don’t hear things that their government doesn’t want them to hear.”
Those agencies, as well as agencies like the CDC, were given access to social media sites to change posts and shadow-ban users.
“I lost my Instagram account; I had almost a million followers. They say it was for ‘misinformation,’ but they could not point to a single post that I ever made that was factually erroneous,” RFK explains.
In emails, Facebook was recorded pushing back and saying RFK wasn’t factually incorrect, so they had to come up with a new word for what RFK was doing.
“Malinformation, which is information that is factually true but nevertheless inconvenient for the government,” he says, to which Tucker responds, “That’s illegal.”
“The White House was overtly telling them that if they didn’t comply, that their Section 230 immunity was in jeopardy,” RFK adds.
Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” isn’t surprised but is disturbed.
“It should be noted that even if RFK Jr., with his 1 million followers on Instagram, was sharing misinformation,” Rubin says, “it's not illegal.”
“It would be against the First Amendment,” he adds.
To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Americans were gaslit for years as they were told that information that was clearly being censored on social media was not being censored.
Now, in a letter to Congress, Mark Zuckerberg has admitted to caving to government pressure and shadow-banning certain viewpoints and accounts.
“In 2021, senior officials from the Biden Administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire, and expressed a lot of frustration with our teams when we didn’t agree,” Zuckerberg wrote in the letter.
“Ultimately, it was our decision whether or not to take content down, and we own our decisions, including COVID-19-related changes we made to our enforcement in the wake of this pressure. I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it,” he continued.
Zuckerberg went on to explain a warning the company received from the FBI regarding a potential Russian disinformation operation that involved the Biden family and Burisma in the lead-up to the 2020 election.
When the New York Post reported on corruption allegations involving the then-Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden, the story was temporarily demoted while waiting for a fact-check.
“It’s since been made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation, and in retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story,” Zuckerberg wrote.
Glenn Beck is not exactly impressed by Zuckerberg’s admission.
“Well, Mark, that’s big of you,” Glenn says sarcastically. “Thank you, thank you very much. I appreciate that. I just would like to ask if I can get, you know, unbanned now. You know, can you not shadow-ban me now?”
To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
The Federal government’s collusion with social media giants to control the narrative through censorship may be coming to an end.
On Monday, March 18, the Supreme Court will hear the case Murthy vs. Missouri (formerly Missouri vs. Biden).
Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) joins Glenn Beck to discuss the details of the upcoming hearing.
The case “deals with the Federal government in its vast censorship enterprise — coercing, colluding, cajoling these social media giants to censor speech,” Schmitt says.
“What the judge found at the lower court ... was that it was almost exclusively conservatives being censored. It reeked of viewpoint discrimination, which violates the First Amendment.”
“What was uncovered, Glenn, were tens of thousands of pages of emails and text messages from high-ranking government officials to social media giants saying, ‘Take it down or we're going to launch an investigation or we're going to sue you under antitrust issues,’” Schmitt explains. “The full power of the Federal government was being used to suppress dissent to silence Americans.”
Of course, this has been “appealed by the government” because “they want to continue to censor people,” says Schmitt, but thankfully, “the Supreme Court is going to hear oral arguments on that on Monday.”
“How do you think it’s gonna go?” asks Glenn.
“I’m hopeful. ... A lot of it will come down to: what was the government actually doing and were they, in fact, coercing? Were they using the power of the Federal government to get these social media giants to do the things that they can't legally do themselves?”
On top of FBI agent Elvis Chan “pre-bunking the Hunter Biden laptop story — calling it Russian disinformation [and] a hack and leak operation” in preparation for 2020, the Federal government squashed any talk of “the efficacy of masks,” “vaccine issues,” and potential “origins of COVID.”
“All of that is uncovered in this lawsuit,” says Schmitt, adding that “Elon Musk buying Twitter with the Twitter files” has also helped tremendously in bringing the blatant violation of the First Amendment to light.
“How much of this do you think was willing, and how much of it was fear of the government?” asks Glenn.
“Both,” is Schmitt’s answer.
“These social media platforms typically were very aligned with the left,” especially Facebook, who he thinks is run by “willing participants.”
However, other documents reveal that some companies “were pushing back” and that the content they were being told to censor “didn’t violate their terms of service.”
“We're dealing with the virtual town square now, Glenn.”
To hear more about Monday’s SCOTUS hearing, watch the clip below.
To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
It seems Canada is getting more dystopian by the day.
The country may soon start censoring and regulating streaming services and social media platforms, as well as forcing podcasters to register with the government in order to use them.
“You don’t want a regulated internet podcast council,” Glenn Beck warns.
The Online Streaming Act, formerly Bill C-11, goes into effect November 28th. This means that any online streaming service that operates in Canada and generates revenue of more than $10 million in any given year will have to register with CRTC.
Toronto Sun political columnist Brian Lilley wrote a simple X message to the Canadian government regarding the new rule: “Go to hell.”
Glenn wonders if simple messages like Lilley’s will be allowed in the future, and Lilley isn’t so sure.
“I don’t know. This is a bizarre act, you know,” Lilley says. “Sometimes politicians pass a law that’s very prescriptive, and it details everything. Other times they pass a broad law, and then they leave the rest up to regulation.”
While some Canadians believe the new bill will not lead to censorship, Lilley isn’t on the same page.
“It could, and that’s a problem because so much of it is left up to regulation of our broadcast regulator, which has done such a bang-up job that they’re going to regulate the internet now,” Lilley says.
“The Trudeau government looked and said, ‘We need to update the broadcast act for the online age, great. Let’s put in all kinds of stuff that could lead to bad places. Let’s make it so that our civil servants, our appointees will control what can be said online,’” he adds.
He notes that if someone in Canada is doing what Tucker Carlson does in America, your videos will be regulated.
“We’re in a very dangerous place,” Lilley says.
To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.
Can Congress pass a law requiring that all platforms of speech censor any negative comment about Pfizer? “Well, of course not,” you will say, “it violates the First Amendment.” In that case, why should it be different when the executive branch works intimately with government-created and liability-protected monopolies to zap anyone’s Twitter account who is critical of Pfizer and its magical products? That is not free market or private enterprise; it is the worst form of fascism, and now a new federal court ruling might bring this point to life.
On Tuesday, a federal judge in Louisiana granted the request from the Louisiana and Missouri attorneys general for discovery to collect documents linking the Biden administration to social media censorship. Thanks to this important order, we might be able to discover the scope of collaboration between government and Twitter and Facebook to censor stories (and people) pertaining to the Hunter Biden laptop story, the origins of COVID-19, the efficacy of masks and lockdowns, and election integrity.
On May 5, Missouri AG Eric Schmitt and Louisiana AG Jeff Landry filed a First Amendment complaint against the Biden administration in the Western District of Louisiana alleging that the administration violated the Free Speech Clause by working with the tech giants to label all dissenting viewpoints on the aforementioned issues as “misinformation.” They alleged that this effort is being led by a “Disinformation Governance Board” (“DGB”) within the Department of Homeland Security.
In Judge Terry Doughty’s Tuesday order, he ruled that the states have standing to bring the claim and in an effort to buttress their request for an injunction against the federal collaboration in censoring private political views, they can request information from the Biden administration proving or disproving their allegations of collaboration with social media companies. The administration has 30 days to turn over the documents.
It’s already in the public sphere that the Biden administration has been leaning into social media censorship in numerous ways. Here are just a few examples:
Finally, let’s not forget that the White House singled out 12 private individuals to be targeted for censorship as the “disinformation dozen.” We also know that private emails released via FOIA revealed that the CDC Foundation worked with Facebook, Merck, the WHO, and other pharma entities on an “Alliance for Advancing Health Online” initiative to control the narrative.
Thus, it doesn’t take a genius to realize that there were likely some juicy conversations going on between the tech executives and the Biden administration, probably in concert with the pharma companies, to silence all opposition. When you have the president demanding such censorship and warning that the opposing viewpoints are “killing” people, the entire argument of “private” companies being able to do what they want goes out the window. As Justice Thomas wrote in a 2021 case, it is indeed a First Amendment violation “if the government coerces or induces it to take action the government itself would not be permitted to do, such as censor expression of a lawful viewpoint.”
Thankfully, it appears that this judge saw through the high-tech modern version of censorship for what it is – pure fascism.
While the legal dispute plays out in court, it’s time for conservatives in the legislatures to hit back at the RINO governors for continuing to act as if anything COVID-related – be it a vaccine or mask mandate – is somehow coming from the private sector. The government mandated it for some, censored opposing viewpoints, absolved pharma of liability, paid for the product, distributed it, and marketed it. The notion that private actors endorsing these policies is an exercise in free-market capitalism is absurd. It is the responsibility of the state to interpose against such tyranny by banning companies from joining in with the federal policies.
We saw this done very effectively when the Florida Department of Health recommended against the baby shots and refused to distribute them. Publix actually decided on its own to follow the guidance of Florida rather than the federal government. It demonstrates that so much of this enforcement in the private sector is being done with the federal boot on companies’ necks. Those Republicans who hide behind affinity for the “private” sector and free markets to allow federal tyranny, censorship, and persecution to continue are complicit in the worst form of fascism.
The fact that private monopolies get roped into government fascism doesn’t ameliorate the pig; it makes it even more dangerous.