Alex Jones’ Infowars to be shut down and liquidated to pay Sandy Hook victims’ families



In yet another attack on freedom of speech, a court-appointed trustee in Alex Jones’ bankruptcy proceedings has disclosed plans to effectively shut down Jones’ media platform, Infowars, and liquidate its inventory to pay some of the $1.5 billion he owes to the Sandy Hook victims’ families.

This news comes in the wake of the recent verdict that Jones’ personal assets would be liquidated to contribute toward paying the astronomical judgment for spreading “misinformation.”

Today he joins Glenn Beck to share his side of the story.

The END of Infowars: What's Next? | Glenn Beck INTERVIEWS Alex Jonesyoutu.be

“This is very historic,” says Jones. “The quote ‘families’ who are represented by high-power Democrat Party law firms, the same ones suing Elon Musk right now for defamation … went on CNN last week and said, ‘We do not want money. We want [Infowars] immediately closed.”’

“They don't want to sell the millions of dollars of inventory – books, films, T-shirts, supplements, water filters. They don't want anything; they want it immediately shut down, and they said ‘because we want to stop his speech,’” he tells Glenn. “It’s just outrageous how transparent this is.”

Jones recalls when two years ago, two judges, one from Texas, the other from Connecticut, found him liable for “failure to give any discovery.” However, Jones swears he “gave them everything,” but “there was just no evidence of what they said [he] did,” so he was declared “guilty in default.”

“I was not allowed to put on defense; I was not allowed to respond,” says Jones, adding that his lawyers “weren't allowed to [defend him].”

Jones says he agreed to an “orderly liquidation,” so that “the stuff actually gets sold off,” which might allow him to give his employees some severance.

However, “they immediately ran to the same judge that found me guilty without a jury trial in Texas and just in a summary hearing [with] no evidence said, ‘Seize all the assets,”’ Jones tells Glenn. “So now the federal trustee is in a fight with them trying to block them today, grabbing the bank accounts and having the sheriff’s department … come and lock the doors.”

When Jones informed the public of the situation, the media, once again, deemed him “a conspiracy theorist.”

“They've admitted in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, CNN – everywhere – that they're going to use this precedent against me in lawfare,” he says.

“I'm guilty of plenty of stuff, I made plenty of mistakes, but I did not say 99% of what they said I said, but I couldn't defend myself,” Jones admits, adding that he did say the shooting was “totally staged” but “never sent anybody to [the families’] houses” and “never peed on graves.”

According to Jones, after “the media [created] this illusion” that he was guilty of a long list of atrocities, they made it impossible for him to respond.

“Every nightly news channel” and “hundreds of publications” were “saying things I never said, [but] I was unable to respond, so that's what's so scary about the situation,” he says.

To hear Glenn’s response, check out the clip above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

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.

TX Drag Queens & ACLU Sue to Perform in Front of CHILDREN | 8/4/23

TX Drag Queens & ACLU Sue to Perform in Front of CHILDREN | 8/4/23

White farmers sue feds over being banned from government program 'solely due to their race'



A group of white Midwestern farmers has filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration for racial discrimination over being banned from a loan forgiveness program offered only to farmers of color, due to the fact that they are ineligible "solely due to their race."

What are the details?

The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty is representing the plaintiffs from Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota and Ohio in their suit against U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Thomas Vilsack and Farm Service Agency administrator Zach Ducheneaux.

Their complaint argues that a loan program as part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 for "socially disadvantaged" farmers is unconstitutional because it is race-based.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel noted that the program "pays up to 120% of direct or guaranteed farm loan balances for producers who are Black, American Indian or Alaskan native, Hispanic or Latino, and Asian American or Pacific Islander." But white producers do not qualify.

"Were plaintiffs eligible for the loan forgiveness benefit, they would have the opportunity to make additional investments in their property, expand their farms, purchase equipment and supplies, and otherwise support their families and local communities," the lawsuit reads. "Because plaintiffs are ineligible to even apply for the program solely due to their race, they have been denied the equal protection of the law and therefore suffered harm."

The U.S. Department of Agriculture explains on its website the reasoning behind the race-based program, stating:

"USDA recognizes that socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers have faced systemic discrimination with cumulative effects that have, among other consequences, led to a substantial loss in the number of socially disadvantaged producers, reduced the amount of farmland they control, and contributed to a cycle of debt that was exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic.
During the pandemic, socially disadvantaged communities saw a disproportionate amount of COVID-19 infection rates, loss of property, hospitalizations, death, and economic hurt."

One of the plaintiffs in the suit is Adam Faust, a dairy farmer and double amputee. He told the Journal Sentinel, "There should absolutely be no federal dollars going anywhere just based on race. The economic impact from COVID-19 didn't hurt any race more than another as far as agriculture goes."

The AP noted that "minority farmers have maintained for decades that they have been unfairly denied farm loans and other government assistance," adding that "the USDA in 1999 and 2010 settled lawsuits from Black farmers accusing the agency of discriminating against them."

Lincoln Project threatens to 'sue the s***' out of Rudy Giuliani who claims the anti-Trump group had ties to Capitol attack



Anti-Trump group The Lincoln Project says it is going to "sue the s***" out of Rudy Giuliani, after the attorney for former President Donald Trump claimed the clan of former Republicans had ties to those who incited violence at the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters.

What are the details?

Giuliani floated the allegations on the show of former Trump advisor Steve Bannon, who was pardoned by the former president in the 24 hours before he left office.

"The defense is going to have to show that this thing was planned," Giuliani told Bannon's "War Room" audience, in an apparent reference to Trump's upcoming Senate impeachment trial over whether the former president is guilty of the House's charge that he incited an insurrection.

He continued, "And that a lot of the people involved in the planning, Antifa, and then even some right-wing groups who are enemies of his—and that they were doing it in order to hurt him —including some right-wing groups that operate for The Lincoln Project or have been working with The Lincoln Project at various times. You have a couple of wolves in sheep's clothing."

Bannon cut Giuliani off at that point, saying, "Hold it, hang on...what are you saying, 'working for The Lincoln Project'? Right-wing groups like who?"

"One of the people who organized this is well known for having worked with The Lincoln Project in the past," Giuliani said, "and also there are witnesses who say..."

Bannon cut Giuliani off again, but the attorney insisted, "You gotta let me finish, Steve."

Giuliani began again, "One of the people involved brought in right-wing groups that opposed Trump, and he brought them in specifically because he wanted to blow this thing up. He had the same motivation as the Antifa people had." The former mayor of New York City went on to assert that "the whole thing" was planned days before and questioned how Trump could be held responsible.

"But who's the guy working with The Lincoln Project?" Bannon asked.

Giuliani replied, "He's a—I don't know if I can reveal his name, because we have that from anonymous sources...he worked in the past for [Sen. Mitt] Romney (R-Utah)."

"You're killin me," Bannon interrupted for a third time, telling Giuliani, "This is why we're getting blown up all the time. You can't throw a charge out there like that and then say 'yeah I got a double secret probation guy who I can't mention but he worked for Romney [and] worked for The Lincoln Project.'"

Even Steve Bannon Isn't Buying Rudy Giuliani's Latest Unhinged Conspiracy www.youtube.com

Follow the interview, the words "Even Bannon" began trending on Twitter, as several on social media pointed out that the former Trump advisor was not convinced of Giuliani's claims.

The next day, as the clip continued to circulate online, The Lincoln Project co-founder Steve Schmidt tweeted out to his followers, "We are going to get to sue the s*** out of Rudy Guiliani. I'm so happy that I'm literally choked up."

He added later, "I have written a prayer 'Dear God, please let it be the case that our lawyers see what I see. May we soon be on our way to suing Rudy Guiliani. @ProjectLincoln. I'm pretty sure that since Rudy is Trump's lawyer we may get to sue Trump also. Praise be.'"

Reed Galen, another founder, tweeted out the Bannon-Giuliani interview, saying, "@projectlincoln spent the last year helping defeat Donald Trump and #Trumpism. That fight is ongoing. @RudyGiulianli's statement is categorically false and defamatory. Rudy should lawyer up."

CAREN Act — which bans false, racially biased 911 calls — unanimously approved by San Francisco supervisors



San Francisco's Board of Supervisors has approved the ban of false, racially biased calls to 911, KPIX-TV reported.

The CAREN Act — Caution Against Racial and Exploitative Non-Emergencies Act — was unanimously passed Tuesday by all 11 supervisors, the station said.

The term "Karen" has become mockingly synonymous with women — usually white women — who confront others without provocation over small issues and sometimes call 911 so police can step in and stop it. Sometimes a "Karen" adds race to the mix when contacting authorities.

"We want to make sure people don't continue to weaponize emergency calls to law enforcement," Supervisor Shamann Walton, who authored the measure, told KPIX. Walton began pushing the legislation in July.

What are the details?

Under the CAREN Act, calls to 911 that discriminate over someone's race, ethnicity, national origin, place of birth, sexual orientation, gender identity or religion is banned — and targets of such calls will be allowed to sue the caller, the station said.

"Communities of color have the right to go about daily activities without being threatened by someone calling 911 on them due to someone's racism," Walton added, according to KPIX. "Rather than calling the police or law enforcement on your neighbor or someone who you think doesn't look like they should be your neighbor, try talking to them and getting to know them. Let's build relationships in our communities."

The station spoke to early voters who supported the measure.

Nicole Didondiff told KPIX the CAREN is needed to combat 911 callers who "are using their white privilege to create trouble for someone else that isn't based in reality."

Jason Powers told the station that "people with privilege like myself use that to our advantage sometimes and a lot of that uncertainty that comes from not knowing people of color allows us the space to make those accusations safely — and it's gonna take a hard check to get some of that righted. So I think it's an interesting and potentially game changing measure."

The board will vote on the CAREN Act again at next Tuesday's meeting before it heads to Mayor London Breed's desk, KPIX reported.

New York Jewish leaders sue Gov. Cuomo alleging 'blatantly anti-Semitic' coronavirus restrictions



Three New York rabbis have filed suit against their state and Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) over his recent executive order mandating targeted coronavirus restrictions in Jewish communities, calling it "blatantly anti-Semitic."

What are the details?

Last week, Cuomo issued major new restrictions on schools, businesses, and houses of worship in 20 COVID-19 "hotspots" in New York, after a rise in cases that he referred to as mainly an "ultra-Orthodox" Jewish problem, according to the New York Post.

The restrictions came just ahead of celebration of Jewish holidays Hoshanah Rabbah, Shmini Atzerees and Simchas Torah, and led to protests in the streets of Brooklyn.

In a lawsuit filed in the Manhattan federal court on Wednesday, Rabbis Moshe Rosner, Samuel Teitelbaum, and Chaim Leibish Rottenberg — representing their respective congregations — claim that the governor's new order was "blatantly anti-Semitic, creating religious-observance based color coded 'hot-spot' zones directed towards particular Jewish communities."

The defendants went on to argue that Cuomo's order "specifically singles out the Orthodox Jewish community in what has proven to be the latest extension of Governor Cuomo's streak of anti-Semitic discrimination."

The Center for American Liberty, the group representing the congregations, say that his move is unconstitutional on several grounds, writing that the governor's actions "violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, the Freedom of Assembly Clause of the First Amendment, Substantive and Procedural Due Process Rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause."

According to the Associated Press, "Cuomo, who has said he has 'respect and love' for the Orthodox community, told reporters Thursday that he was not targeting Orthodox Jewish communities. He said red zones are based on addresses of residences where more individuals are testing positive for Covid-19."

In reaction to a similar lawsuit from separate Jewish group last week, a senior advisor to Cuomo told The Post, "We've been sued virtually every day for every action taken." He added, "We're concentrating on reducing the virus in these hot spots and saving lives, period."


Hundreds of NYC restaurants join $2 billion lawsuit against Cuomo, de Blasio over city's indoor dining ban



More than 350 New York City restaurants have joined a $2 billion class action lawsuit against Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) and Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) over the city's ban on indoor dining, arguing state and local officials have done "irreparable harm" with the coronavirus shutdown measure.

What are the details?

The state of New York has opened up indoor dining for everywhere except The Big Apple where only outdoor dining is allowed, leading (remaining) struggling New York City restauranteurs to take legal action as the city's COVID-19 numbers hit new lows and colder weather approaches.

The lawsuit was filed Thursday, and the next day, Cuomo said during a press call that he would not budge on the issue until the NYPD — whose funding was stripped by $1 billion in recent weeks by de Blasio — had in place a 4,000-strong task force of officers to enforce social distancing guidelines for the city, according to Reason.

Making the issue worse, neighboring New Jersey has allowed indoor dining, leaving New York City establishments to helplessly look on as their competitors reopen for business but they remain shuttered.

Joe Oppedisano, owner of Il Bacco in New York City, spearheaded the lawsuit.

Newsday reported:

Il Bacco is about one and a half blocks, or around 500 feet, away from the Nassau border, where restaurants are permitted to have indoor dining at 50% capacity. New York City is the only part of the state where indoor dining is still banned due to pandemic-based restrictions, though its percentage of positive COVID-19 tests is similar to the rest of the state. There is currently no timeline to open indoor dining for city restaurants, even as fall weather approaches, and owners are concerned that their doors will remain closed through the end of the year.

"Every restaurant is packed and me, a block and a half away, I can't open," Joe Oppedisano, owner of Il Bacco, said Monday in an interview. The restaurant can have customers on its rooftop, but not on the first two floors of the building. "And winter is coming," Oppedisano said. The weather is warm now, but what happens two or three weeks from now? And then when it rains? I'm lucky I have a rooftop and I have a cover I can open and close, but once it gets cold, I can't do that anymore."

According to The Daily Wire, Cuomo responded Monday:

I am aware of that competitive disadvantage for NYC restaurants … I'm aware that restaurants in New York City are very unhappy with doing no indoor dining, I understand the economic consequences, their argument will now be exacerbated [because of NJ] and it's something that we're watching and considering. I want as much economic activity as quickly as possible, we also want to make sure transmission rate stays under control. That is the tension.