Wikipedia Founder’s Ban From His Own Website Confirms The Left’s Censorship Scheme Is Far From Over
Wikipedia’s treatment of its founder is the perfect prophecy for anyone tempted to believe that we’ve won the free speech war for good.Wikipedia’s treatment of its founder is the perfect prophecy for anyone tempted to believe that we’ve won the free speech war for good.NYT mocked Usha Vance’s maternity wardrobe. Then she humiliated them.
The New York Times has sunk to an all-time low after criticizing prominent conservatives' maternity outfits — taking aim at a dress Usha Vance wore during “Story Time with the Second Lady” alongside her husband, JD Vance.
“There’s no floor. They just keep getting lower and lower. And to the extent that the New York Times actually paid someone to write a fashion critique on what White House officials were wearing during their pregnancies,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales says on “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered.”
“This is not bad enough to critique a pregnant woman about a lot of things. They’re like, ‘We’re going to make them feel bad about what they wore,’” she continues.
The article, titled, “The Politics and Power of the Pregnancy Image,” criticizes pregnant Usha Vance, Katie Miller, and Karoline Leavitt for how they dress as pregnant women.
The New York Times commented on Usha’s “stretchy, coral dress,” explaining that it “hugs her stomach, making what she is talking about very clear.”
“After all, as second lady, her job is to represent and humanize the vice president by spotlighting her pregnancy. She is doing exactly that,” the article reads.
Gonzales laughs, “I mean, she has a giant pregnant belly. What would you like for her to do? Wear like a big paper sack?”
However, Usha wasn’t going to take the criticism lying down.
“Now that we know the political significance of my $8.75 coral maternity dress from Old Navy, can’t wait to hear about what the New York Times has to say about my elastic waistband pants and compression socks! In the meantime, enjoy my pregnancy fashion (or lack thereof) and a good story with your kids on Storytime with the Second Lady,” Usha posted in a rebuttal on X.
“Now, in, you know, typical journalism fashion for the New York Times, they don’t talk about any important things. They want to talk about Usha Vance’s maternity dress and Taylor Swift’s wedding,” Gonzales comments.
“They’re investigating not fraud, not anything that actually helps the everyday American citizen, but they did publish, ‘New York Prepares for an Event at M.S.G. Clues Point to You Know Who,’” she continues, showing the Times' article on Swift and fiance Travis Kelce’s wedding gossip.
“There were actually two push alerts. They wasted a push alert on Taylor Swift investigation. That’s insane. Two push alerts. Imagine people being busy at work typing on their computer like, ‘Oh my gosh, I just got a news push alert. I wonder what breaking news it is,’” she adds.
Want more from Sara Gonzales?
To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
European Author Of Banned Book: ‘It Is Christianity They Are Trying To Censor’
European authorities are not only banning Christians from writing about the Bible, but trying to keep the world unaware they have done so.Covid Dissenter Alex Berenson’s Free Speech Victory Might Be The First Of Many
Berenson told The Federalist, 'the government’s admission is a crucial step forward in our case.'The REAL story of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal from the reporter who broke the news
Emma Morris was only 27 years old and six months into her employment at the New York Post when she got a call in late September 2020 from former Trump adviser Steve Bannon saying he had a story that would “change her life.”
“He says, ‘I have Hunter Biden’s computer,”’ Morris recounts on “The Glenn Beck Program.”
Initially, Emma was “skeptical of the source,” given that both Bannon and Rudy Giuliani (who was in possession of a copy of the hard drive) were campaigning for President Trump. Despite being a dedicated conservative who likes Trump and “wanted the story to be true,” Emma was committed to true journalism and thus determined not to be blinded by her political views.
“My capacity as an editor is to relay the truth as closely as I can, not to campaign for Trump,” she tells Glenn.
When the New York Post gave her the greenlight to pursue the story, Emma was immediately overwhelmed by the sheer volume of documents she had to sort through just to pinpoint the angle the story would take.
“I called my boss, my editor in chief, Michelle Gotthelf, ... and I was like, ‘I don’t know how to make sense of all of this. It’s too much,’” she recounts.
Gotthelf’s advice was brilliant: “Find me where Joe Biden comes into this.”
“And that was when it clicked,” Emma says.
Her search narrowed in on roughly “10 documents” that involved Joe Biden, which then had to be verified for authenticity given the laptop had been through “a chain of custody.”
“The way that we were able to do that was very simple. ... We had the contact lists in his phone book, which was also on the laptop. ... And we just called them and said, ‘Hey, it’s the New York Post. I’m going to read you something. Can you tell me if it sounds familiar?’” Emma says.
As she began making these calls, one thing became clear: “It wasn’t Hunter, you know, scurrying around the world himself.”
“There was business partners, and some of those partners had either been burned, some of them had gone to jail, some of them had realized that this is too much. Everyone was receptive,” Emma says.
The response to the story the New York Post broke was shocking.
“I expected conservative media to pick it up. ... And that wasn’t what happened at all. As it turned out, the CIA was upset,” Emma says.
“We published at 5 a.m. By like 7 a.m. latest, it was completely blacklisted on Twitter. ... Within two hours, it was classified as child porn internally,” she explains.
It later came out that the FBI had been in possession of the physical laptop since December of 2019 and was actively preparing Twitter executives to treat any breaking story about Hunter Biden as Russian disinformation.
To hear more of Emma’s insider scoop, watch the video 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.
Biden’s COVID censorship machine takes a hit: Missouri wins landmark ban on federal threats to Big Tech
A landmark settlement delivered a blow to the censorship industrial complex that silenced Americans during the COVID era.
Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) announced Tuesday that Missouri had reached a settlement agreement with the U.S. government in its Missouri v. Biden lawsuit, which accused the Biden administration of violating Americans' First Amendment rights by directing social media companies to censor speech challenging the government's COVID messaging.
'For every working Missouri family tired of being silenced by their own government: this victory is yours.'
Schmitt filed the lawsuit against the Biden administration while serving as Missouri attorney general, before securing his Senate seat.
The agreement included a 10-year Consent Decree that enforces a narrow permanent injunction on the surgeon general, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The injunction prevents them from threatening social media companies with any form of punishment if those companies fail to remove or suppress content that contains protected speech.
However, this ban applies only to posts made on Facebook, Instagram, X, LinkedIn, and YouTube by the specific plaintiffs in the case, including Missouri and Louisiana government officials and agencies acting in their official capacity. It does not extend to other social media networks or content posted by the general public.
"The Parties also agree that government, politicians, media, academics, or anyone else applying labels such as 'misinformation,' 'disinformation,' or 'malinformation' to speech does not render it constitutionally unprotected," the agreement reads.
The court must first approve this settlement agreement.
"We just won Missouri v. Biden," Schmitt wrote in a post on X. "As Missouri's Attorney General, I sued the Biden regime for brazenly colluding with Big Tech to silence Missouri families — censoring the truth about COVID, the Hunter Biden laptop, the open border, and the 2020 election. They tried to turn Facebook, X, YouTube, and the rest into their private speech police, labeling dissent 'misinformation' while they pushed their narrative on the American people."
Schmitt called the Consent Decree the "first real, operational restraint on the federal censorship machine."
He explained that it "directly binds the Surgeon General, the CDC, and CISA: no more threats of legal, regulatory, or economic punishment. No more coercion. No more unilateral direction or veto of platform decisions to remove, suppress, deplatform, or algorithmically bury protected speech."
"For every working Missouri family tired of being silenced by their own government: this victory is yours. The heartland fought back, and the heartland delivered," Schmitt concluded.
RELATED: 'Karma is a b***h': Trump taps epidemiologist targeted by Biden admin and censored online to run NIH
Benjamin Weingarten, a senior contributor at the Federalist, addressed the victory's narrow application.
"This decree is limited to the plaintiffs, but as precedent, and practically, its impact may prove orders of magnitude more powerful in protecting disfavored speech," Weingarten wrote, calling it "a momentous blow for the First Amendment."
National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya, who had to withdraw as a plaintiff in the case after being appointed by the Trump administration, called the settlement "a huge win for all Americans."
"Huzzah! The consent decree in Missouri v. Biden is a historic victory for free speech in the US. Though I had to switch to the government side in the case after I became NIH director, I've never been more pleased by 'losing' in my life," he wrote.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Settlement Stops Government From Using Social Media As ‘Speech Police’
'Biden officials at the highest levels of government tried to use Facebook, X, and YouTube as their speech police,' Sen. Eric Schmitt said.Europeans Testify On How Europe Is Banning Americans From Saying What They Believe
'European laws [are] now being exported by the European Union. ... American speech is already being affected.'Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com