Random

    Opinion

    Home Opinion

    As Crime Soars, GOP House Hopes to Block DC’s New ‘Soft on Crime’ Bill

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    0

    ANALYSIS – As crazy as it may seem, even as violent crime continues unabated and illegal aliens flood into our nation’s capital, the extreme left (aka ‘progressive’) local D.C. government is trying to pass a revised criminal code that would lower penalties for a number of violent criminal offenses.

    While the D.C. criminal code is outdated and in major need of revision, making existing laws even more lenient is a recipe for disaster.

    This is why the new GOP-led House is moving to quash D.C.’s latest leftist crime-enabling law by using Congress’ constitutional authority over the District.

    Murders, carjackings and armed robberies have been in the news almost daily recently, and while the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) claimed that murders decreased in 2022 vs. 2021, the numbers are up for debate and still extremely high.

    As a special police officer and security contractor in D.C., I have personally seen the rise in violent crime over the past three years, in part fueled by the BLM riots of 2020.

    More than 200 murders were reported last year. This is the second year in a row the number has topped 200.

    Meanwhile, other violent crimes, such as armed robbery and carjacking, appear on the rise.

    Taking your car by force in D.C., increased by 46% in April 2022 when compared to April 2021.

    Armed robberies with a firearm were up 23% by October, having climbed well over 1,000 by that month last year.

    And 2023 is off to a worse start.

    According to a January NBC Washington headline: “2023 Off to Violent Start for DC, With Crime Up and Some Residents Worried.”

    This, in a city which already has one of the highest crime rates in the country. 

    Washington, D.C. has had the highest violent crime rate of any city in the U.S., at 1,000 crimes per 100,000 residents, based on 2020 data.

    Similarly, it had the highest property crime rate in 2020, at 3,493 crimes per 100,000 residents.

    Despite all this, in Nov. 2022, the leftist D.C. Council approved the Revised Criminal Code Act (RCCA).

    This proposed law reduces penalties for violent crimes, including carjackings, robberies and homicides.

    To her credit, the more centrist Democrat mayor, Muriel Bowser, vetoed the bill in January, but the far-left council overrode Bowser’s veto less than two weeks later.

    This is why the GOP-led House has decided to act.

    The Daily Caller reports:

    Republican Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde and Tennesee Sen. Bill Hagerty will introduce a joint resolution of disapproval to block the Washington, D.C., Council’s Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022, which would lower penalties for a number of violent criminal offenses, according to legislation first obtained by the Daily Caller.

    Clyde will introduce the House version Thursday. Hagerty will introduce the Senate companion next week, sources with knowledge confirmed to the Caller.

    Congress can exercise authority over D.C. local affairs, according to the District Clause of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17), and Congress reviews all D.C. legislation before it can become law. Congress can change or even overturn D.C. legislation and can impose new laws on the district.

    As Congressman Clyde said:

    The D.C. Council’s radical rewrite of the criminal code threatens the well-being of both Washingtonians and visitors — making our nation’s capital city a safe haven for violent criminals. In response to this dangerous and severely misguided measure, it’s now up to Congress to save our nation’s capital from itself.

    The House GOP effort will still have a tough road to follow. It will need bipartisan support to pass in the Senate.

    A simple majority is needed, but Democrats control the upper chamber by two seats if you include VP Kamala Harris’s tie-breaking vote.

    After passing the Senate, it would still need Joe Biden’s signature.

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    CDC Now Doling Out Controversial ‘Advice’ For New Dads

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    0
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    ANALYSIS – Your federal tax dollars, hard at work – The far-left l*nacy has taken control of so many formerly respected American institutions, it’s tough for some of them to outdo themselves. 

    The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) though wasn’t content just m*sinforming Americans about C*VID-19’s o*igins, risks, m*sking, and l*ckd*wns, it is now promoting l*ftist ins*nity and likely endangering the health of babies.

    And it is time for Congress to investigate.

    The CDC, with a $12 billion budget and more than 12,000 employees, is an Atlanta-based federal agency tasked with protecting Americans from disease outbreaks and other public health threats. Dr. Rochelle Walensky, ex-head of the CDC under Joe Biden resigned effective June 30, without explanation.

    Previously an infectious-diseases specialist at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Walensky had no experience running a government agency prior to being picked for the job by Biden.

    The agency recently published advice for ‘tr*ns-id*ntified’ and ‘n*n-bi*ary’ individuals (aka m*n) on how to bre*stfeed their infants, which the health agency called “ch*stfe*ding.” 

    Biological men who tr*nsition to women can produce a form of br*astmilk by taking a cocktail of h*rmone drugs that mimic the changes a woman’s body undergoes during the late stages of pregnancy and shortly after the birth of a child.

    Initially developed for biological women who adopted or had a child via surrogacy and wanted to bre*stfeed, it’s called the N*wman-G*ldfarb pr*tocol, and it tricks the body into l*ctating.

    The CDC’s Health Equity Considerations page explains that these bi*logical men don’t need to physically have a child to feed a child from the ch*st: “An individual does not need to have given birth to br*astfeed or ch*stfeed,” the CDC website reads.

    The now thoroughly discredited agency also notes that br*astfeeding can be referred to as ‘b*dyfeeding’ which sounds like it’s describing something gr*tesque out of a ho*ror movie. 

    It notes: “Some families may have other preferred terminology for how they feed their babies, such as nursing, ch*stfeeding, or bo*yf*eding.” 

    Jay W. Richards, a senior research fellow in religious liberty and civil society at the Heritage Foundation, called for greater review of the health agency from congressional leaders. 

    He told The Christian Post that the CDC showed a willingness to put politics ahead of public health during C*VID, adding that the “latest debacle” over “ch*stf*eding is even worse.”

    Encouraging bi*logical men on off-label g*nder ch*nge drugs to ‘ch*stfeed’ babies is crazy, and risky.

    The Christian Posts added:

    “The agency seems to be tacitly endorsing males’ chestfeeding’ infants with the help of experimental drug cocktail now proves that the CDC has been captured by an ideology that puts the fetishes of disturbed men over the wellbeing of infants,” Richards stated. “It doesn’t even pretend that these experiments have been carefully tested. Its commitment to so-called ‘health equity’ seems to override any old-timey concerns about the effects of drugs, and weird discharges from male bodies, on defenseless infants.”

    The CDC’s endorsement of biological men feeding infants directly from the breast has also received pushback from several health experts, who warn that the long-term impact of the practice is not well-known. 

    U.S. Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kansas, who served as an Obstetrician for 25 years and delivered over 5,000 babies, said in a statement that the CDC statement is “irresponsible”  “defies science and safety.”

    “In my opinion, the CDC has lost all credibility and is in direct conflict with the FDA for marketing a non-FDA approved drug,” Marshall said. “A biological male filled with hormones and a concoction of other drugs that have not been studied that could harm a baby should NEVER be encouraged. When will the Woke Left wake up and realize what they are doing to our country?”

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Is Vivek Ramaswamy The GOP’s New Trump ‘Lite’?

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    13
    Vivek Ramaswamy speaking with attendees at the 2022 AmericaFest at the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix, Arizona.

    ANALYSIS- Who is this skinny guy with the funny-sounding name? (That was his opening line at the debate). Vivek Ramaswamy wasn’t supposed to be at the center of the first Republican presidential candidate debate in Milwaukee.

    Ron DeSantis was supposed to be the viable GOP alternative to Donald Trump. A two-term governor of the third most populous state in the union, DeSantis, a Navy veteran who served in Iraq, is as conservative as they come.

    And he has a proven track record of fighting the left in Florida – and winning.

    But despite his solid bona fides and resume, DeSantis has a personality problem. He just doesn’t exude charm or confidence, and that’s hurting him – a lot.

    Meanwhile, Ramaswamy the 38-year-old Trump-defending, Cincinnati-born, biotech billionaire (worth at least $950 million), son of Pakistani immigrants, kind of stole the show at the debate.

    According to former FBI agent and body language expert, Joe Navarro: “[Ramaswamy] consistently looked the most comfortable on stage.”

    He was also the most openly and unabashedly pro-Trump. He was the first candidate to raise their hand when asked who would support the former President as the party nominee even if he is convicted on felony charges that he’s facing.

    He has also promised to pardon Trump if elected. But he went even farther than that.

    “President Trump, I believe, was the best president of the 21st century,” Ramaswamy said in a clip from the debate Trump posted on Truth Social.

    And Trump loved it.

    “This answer gave Vivek Ramaswamy a big WIN in the debate because of a thing called TRUTH. Thank you, Vivek!”

    The ever-smiling political newbie Ramaswamy, who seemed to be having a blast on stage, was also the target of many of his GOP rivals.

    As TIME reported:

    Maybe it was Ramaswamy’s consistent and confounding defense of All Things Trump. Maybe it was his smooth talk and culture-war acumen. Maybe it was just the fact that Ramaswamy frankly does not care how things were done before and might just have enough self-made money to go the distance.

    Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie snarled that he had “had enough already tonight of a guy who sounds like ChatGPT,” an A.I. battery. He then dismissed Ramaswamy as someone on the same level as a political figure universally loathed in the GOP. “The last person in one of these debates… who stood in the middle of the stage and said, ‘What is a skinny guy with an odd last name doing up here?’ was Barack Obama. And I am afraid we are dealing with the same type of amateur standing on the stage tonight,” Christie said.

    But the quick witted Ramaswamy’s riposte to Christie was a zinger: “Give me a hug like you did to Obama, and you’ll help elect me just like you did to Obama. Give me the damn hug, brother.”

    Ramaswamy was referring to the 2012 incident when Christie was accused of “hugging” Obama during his visit in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy which hit days before the 2012 presidential election.

    It’s a claim that Christie has been denying since then, saying: “I didn’t hug him.”

    Photos at the time seem to back up Christie, but the zinger still worked.

    Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN under Trump, and ex-South Carolina governor, Nikki Haley, who is of Indian descent, hit Ramaswamy too: “You have no foreign policy experience, and it shows.”

    I would agree with that assessment and believe he has made a few deeply flawed important national security statements – including on Ukraine and Israel.

    But he is super smart and can learn quickly.

    Then Vice President Mike Pence took a Christie-like jab at Ramaswamy, attacking the very same quality that originally helped raise Trump in the GOP base – that he is not a politician.

    “Now it’s not the time for on-the-job training,” retorted Pence. “We don’t need to bring in a rookie. We don’t need to bring in people with no experience.”

    AS TIME noted: “Attacks during debates are the norm but this was different. Ramaswamy’s competitors really don’t like him. Not even a little.”

    However, there is one important GOP rival who seems to like Ramaswamy – Donald Trump. And that could be all that matters.

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    ‘Top Gun’ Blowback – Pentagon Won’t Help Hollywood if They Submit to China

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    1
    Austin Green, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    ANALYSIS – In an unexpected, but long overdue move, the Pentagon has stated it will no longer work with directors if their movies will be censored by Beijing. This follows directly on the heels of Vietnam banning the movie ‘Barbie’ over its inclusion of a China-friendly map of the South China Sea.

    That movie’s producers apparently caved to Chinese pressure and included the map showing China essentially owning the South China Sea, which it does not, despite its claims. And Vietnam wasn’t happy.

    But, as I previously wrote, this Chinese censorship problem really exploded with last year’s release of Tom Cruise’s blockbuster “Top Gun: Maverick.” 

    And now the Pentagon, thanks to GOP Senator Ted Cruz, has made it clear it now bans any military assistance to directors who plan to comply (or will likely comply) with censorship demands from the Chinese regime in order to distribute their movie in China.

    In trailers for the ‘Maverick’ film shown in 2019, the flags of Taiwan and Japan had been removed from Capt. Pete “Maverick” Mitchell’s flight jacket worn by Cruise in the 1986 original “Top Gun” movie.

    The flags were part of a Far East Cruise patch commemorating the 1963-64 deployment by the USS Galveston off Japan and Taiwan. In the preview clip for the movie in 2019, those two historically accurate flags were replaced by generic nonsensical symbols.

    This shameless kowtowing was an apparent attempt to appease Chinese investor Tencent. But after serious blowback in the U.S. — and after Tencent reportedly dropped its investment in the film – the flags were restored in the final version of the film.

    In another example, Chinese government censors actually pushed the producers of “Spider-man: No Way Home” to remove the Statue of Liberty, according to Puck. This, likely due to its association with the Tiananmen Square protests.

    Thankfully, the studio did not comply, and that movie wasn’t shown in China.

    The Defense Department updated its rules for working with movie studios after Cruz (R-Texas) inserted language, known as the SCRIPT Act. into the fiscal 2023 defense policy bill.

    Cruz has strongly condemned Beijing’s censorship of Hollywood films.

    “What does it say to the world when Maverick is scared of the Chinese communists?” he said at the time.

    tweet

    The latest Top Gun movie also reportedly showed us a peek at what might be the SR-72 – the super-secret experimental hypersonic spy plane under development by Lockheed Martin. It was called the ‘Darkstar’ in the film.

    Providing more context, Politico reported:

    According to a new Defense Department document obtained by POLITICO, filmmakers who want the U.S. military to help with their projects must now pledge that they won’t let Beijing alter those films.

    The DOD “will not provide production assistance when there is demonstrable evidence that the production has complied or is likely to comply with a demand from the Government of the People’s Republic of China … to censor the content of the project in a material manner to advance the national interest of the People’s Republic of China,” the document reads.

    Hollywood and the Defense Department have enjoyed a symbiotic relationship for decades. The Pentagon has allowed filmmakers to shoot their projects on military bases, Navy ships, or other locations, and weighs in on filmmaking processes. The military benefits from positive portrayals of service members, and moviemakers benefit from authentic settings and technical expertise.

    But as China’s ruling Communist Party has developed increasingly advanced censorship and surveillance tools, countless American companies — including Hollywood studios — have sought to comply with Beijing’s demands while attempting to dodge stateside pushback.

    However, from now on, producers of films greenlighted by the Defense Department must notify the Pentagon “in writing of such a censorship demand, including the terms of such demand, and whether the project has complied or is likely to comply with a demand for such censorship.”

    But not just that. DoD will also weigh any “verifiable information” from people not involved in the production who indicate that producers could comply with a censorship demand.

    So, hopefully Hollywood will stop caving to China’s blackmail, or risk losing access to their much-loved Pentagon collaboration.

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Amanda Head: Obese Celebrity Celebrates Her Own Obesity

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    0

    Hollywood has finally gone full tilt…

    Watch Amanda break down the latest woke controversy below:

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Alec Baldwin Charged with Involuntary Manslaughter over ‘Rust’ Movie Set Shooting

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    2

    ANALYSIS – From the day cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was shot and killed on the set of the movie Rust, on Oct. 21, 2021, there has been a flurry of speculation over whether anyone would be criminally charged.

    Hutchins was killed when a live round was fired from a real ‘prop’ gun being held by liberal actor Alec Baldwin.

    Well, now the speculation is over, and Baldwin will be charged.

    He has always denied responsibility, saying the replica old west revolver should have had dummy bullets and that he never pulled the trigger.

    On the first point, Baldwin is correct; on the second, he is less convincing.

    The set armorer is responsible for ensuring gun safety. And there was no reason for live rounds to be on a movie set. Period.

    Much less mixed in with dummy rounds.

    The armorer certainly is responsible if not culpable. And a big question is why live rounds were on the set and mixed in with dummy rounds and who put them there.

    But experts have shown that Baldwin’s claim of not firing the gun doesn’t wash.

    It is physically impossible for this type of gun to fire without the trigger being pulled and/or the hammer dropped.

    Beyond his immediate possible culpability as the man who ‘fired’ the gun, Baldwin was also a producer of the low-budget Western film.

    After the shooting numerous current and former crew members from the film publicly claimed that safety was extremely lax, and formal complaints had been made and ignored about those safety concerns.

    The shooting occurred while rehearsing a scene inside a wooden chapel on Bonanza Creek Ranch in New Mexico.

    This is a popular western location seen in the likes of Jimmy Stewart’s 1955 “The Man from Laramie” and Paul Newman and Robert Redford’s 1969 “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.”

    As the crew worked out positions for the scene, Baldwin, playing a grizzled 1880s Kansas outlaw, fired a live round from an Italian-made Pietta Long Colt revolver replica – the bullet passed through Hutchins’ chest and lodged in director Joel Souza’s shoulder.

    Hutchins died in a flight to the hospital in Albuquerque, while Souza was later discharged from the hospital.

    In April 2022, the producers, including Baldwin, were fined $136,793 by the New Mexico Occupational Health and Safety Bureau, which said: “management knew that firearm safety procedures were not being followed on set and demonstrated plain indifference to employee safety.”

    A wrongful death lawsuit was then filed against Alec Baldwin and other key members of the production in Feb. 2022.

    The lawsuit named Baldwin and others who “are responsible for the safety on the set” and called out “reckless behavior and cost-cutting” that led to the death of Hutchins, according to the family’s lawyer.

    The lawsuit also claimed that Baldwin and other “Rust” crew and cast committed “major breaches” of safety on the set.

    That lawsuit was later settled.

    But Baldwin’s legal woes continue as he is now being hit with two counts of involuntary manslaughter over the shooting.

    Hannah Gutierrez Reed, the film’s young and inexperienced armorer, will also be charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter.

    Meanwhile, assistant director Dave Halls who handed the gun to Baldwin prior to the shooting signed a plea agreement for a charge of the negligent use of a deadly weapon.

    In return, he received a suspended sentence and six months of probation, according to the district attorney.

    If Baldwin is convicted, he could be facing up to 18 months in prison.

    “Involuntary manslaughter in New Mexico is a Class D felony punishable by up to 18 months in prison,” former Assistant U.S. Attorney Neama Rahmani explained to Fox News Digital. “If Baldwin is convicted, I can see him being sentenced at or near the max.”

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Biden DOJ Wants Even Harsher Sentences for Key Jan. 6 Rioters

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    3
    Elvert Barnes, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    ANALYSIS – First, let’s be clear. I was at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, as a security contractor for a foreign TV news crew. I witnessed the chaos firsthand and was not happy about it. 

    I strongly condemned those who violently rioted there in an article the very next day.

    In my piece, I even said they should go to jail, just like any other violent rioters.

    And they should. But Joe Biden’s DoJ isn’t content with ‘hard time’ for some of these rioters. They want a much longer time.

    To also be clear, at the Capitol that day I saw tens of thousands of peaceful protesters before the riot. And saw many ‘rioters’ who weren’t violent.

    Meanwhile, I have written about how many peaceful Jan. 6 protesters have been persecuted unfairly, and how harshly many violent rioters have been treated compared to equally violent Black Lives Matter (BLM) rioters.

    Some of it is due to the Biden Department of Justice (DoJ) being hyper-political and overzealous, and part of it is the fact that these folks are getting tried and sentenced in the ‘People’s Republic of DC.’

    When I first read of the case of Stewart Rhodes, head of the Oath Keepers, I thought he was one of the few who should get serious jail time. He and his gang were part of an organized, violent cadre that went to the Capitol to create violent chaos.

    This is why they were charged and convicted of ‘seditious conspiracy’ – the only ones to be found guilty of that serious charge.

    But when I heard he had gotten 18 years, I was floored. Child molesters get less time. Repeat violent offenders get less time. Even convicted spies sometimes get less time.

    Eighteen years is a lot of time.

    Even so, federal prosecutors are not satisfied with the severity of the jail terms delivered by the federal judge overseeing the case.

    In the case of Rhodes, they wanted 25 years.

    U.S. District Court Judge, and Barack Obama appointee, Amit Mehta sentenced Rhodes, and his colleagues, harshly due what he characterized as a dangerous criminal conspiracy aimed at violently derailing the transfer of presidential power.

    But even if you believe these knuckleheads were intent on blocking the certification of the Electoral College vote, their chances of ‘derailing the transfer of presidential power’ two weeks later, on Jan 20, were little to none.

    This is why Mehta’s sentences, while harsh, were still less than the prison terms prosecutors recommended and years below an agreed-upon “guidelines range” based upon their charges.

    Of the others convicted of seditious conspiracy, Florida Oath Keeper leader Kelly Meggs received a 12-year term instead of the 21 DOJ wanted. Roberto Minuta of New York was sentenced to 4.5 years instead of 17. Joseph Hackett of Florida got a 3.5-year sentence; DOJ sought 12 years. 

    Ed Vallejo of Arizona was sentenced to 3-years, while DOJ wanted 17. And David Moerschel of Florida was sentenced to three years instead of the 10 DoJ wanted.

    All of these are significant sentences in federal prison. A few might be deserved, but Biden’s DoJ isn’t happy with that. They want these folks to suffer even more. 

    If only DoJ was that zealous with other political crimes, and criminals, Hunter Biden might actually be in jail.

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    CNN Blasted for Hiring ‘Spy Who Lied’ About Hunter Laptop

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    0
    Jay Godwin, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    ANALYSIS – One of the most egregious efforts at election interference in 2020 was when the Joe Biden campaign successfully quashed the bombshell New York Post story of Hunter Biden’s laptop. 

    The laptop has proven to hold a treasure trove of incriminating evidence against the Bidens.

    But it was effectively kept from the American people in the final weeks of the campaign through a concerted conspiracy between the Biden campaign, Big Tech social media companies, the major news networks, and a group of former spies.

    And one of those who helped hide it from the public is now an on-air CNN analyst.

    It has since been documented that Antony Blinken, then with the Biden campaign, now Biden Secretary of State, retained former senior U.S. intelligence officials to smear the laptop story as Russian disinformation.

    As I have written about, 51 former spooks eventually signed a letter calling the laptop story likely Russian disinformation. This was then used as justification by the media to censor and ban the story.

    One of the most senior of those partisan intelligence hacks was ex-Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper. 

    As a reward for his disservice, Clapper has now been hired by CNN as an analyst where he will be able to spew disinformation on all manner of national security and political topics.

    And Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy made a big deal about this on a recent CNN appearance. 

    In a tense back-and-forth exchange with the reporter McCarthy ignored the question about Trump’s classified documents case and instead emphasized that Clapper had been one of dozens of former intelligence officials who signed the letter dismissing the Post’s October 2020 expose on Hunter’s laptop as a Russian disinformation.

    He also threw in CNN’s hiring of discredited former deputy FBI chief Andrew McCabe who was fired for leaking classified information.

    Fox News reported:

    “Are you prepared to defend your network, CNN?” McCarthy said as they spoke over each other. “Even though your network hired Andrew McCabe, who was fired from the FBI for leaking classified documents, did you remove him from your network? No, you continue to put him on to give judgment against President Trump. You also hired Clapper …”

    McCarthy later continued, according to Fox:

    “So, your network hires Clapper, who literally lied to the American public – one of 51 other individuals that had briefings and used it politically to tell the American public that a laptop was Russia collusion, even though it had all this information about the Biden administration,” the speaker said.

    “Are you prepared to get rid of those people from your network? Because my concern as a policymaker is that when [you] weaponize government, and now you’re weaponizing networks, that is wrong,” McCarthy continued. “I have a real problem that your network actually pays people who did classified information and then lied to the American public to try to influence a presidential election, and then you put them on your network to give an opinion.”

    This line of attack against CNN and other major news outlets who hire ex-officials involved in partisan election interference is valid and should be continued. 

    This goes well beyond just being partisan.

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Judge Again Blocks Biden From Violating 1st Amendment

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    0
    Gavel via Wikimedia Commons Image

    ANALYSIS – Even when presented with overwhelming evidence that Team Biden colluded intimately with Big Tech social media companies to censor conservative Americans, the White House doubled down on violating the 1st Amendment. 

    As I wrote last week, on July 4th a federal judge blocked “federal agencies from communicating with Big Tech firms to censor posts.”

    This, after a lawsuit against the Biden administration by three Republican state Attorney Generals (AGs).

    According to the judge, Terry A. Doughty, the AGs “have produced evidence of a massive effort by Defendants, from the White House to federal agencies, to suppress speech based on its content.” 

    “If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States history,” Doughty wrote in his preliminary injunction against more than 40 administration officials. 

    “In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the federal government, and particularly the defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech.”

    Please note – ‘disinformation’ is any information the left and Team Biden don’t like.

    This is serious constitutional stuff. One would think the White House might say, “ok, we overstepped a bit.”

    But not Team Biden.

    Using the Orwellian doublespeak, the left always uses to hide the truth, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said: “We are going to continue to promote responsible actions.” 

    She added: “That is something that we’re going to continue to do to make sure we protect public health and make sure there is safety and security.”

    Using similar verbiage, the Department of Justice announced later that same day that it would appeal the decision, to protect public health, safety, and security.

    Basically, Team Biden said, we don’t care, we want to keep violating the Constitution and censoring our opponents. And we are going to request an emergency order from the judge to do it.

    The Daily Caller reported:

    Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and Louisiana Attorney General Jeffrey Landry opposed the Biden administration’s attempt to stop the injunction in a court filing Sunday, writing the administration was essentially asking to “continue violating the First Amendment.”

    “In essence, Defendants argue that the injunction should be stayed because it might interfere with the Government’s ability to continue working with social-media companies to censor Americans’ core political speech on the basis of viewpoint,” they wrote in the court filing. “In other words, the Government seeks a stay of the injunction so that it can continue violating the First Amendment.”

    Thankfully, on Monday the same federal judge blocked Biden again, denying the administration’s attempt to pause the injunction. 

    The Washington Post reported that Judge Doughty noted again that the plaintiffs (the state AGs) would likely succeed in proving the government colluded with social media companies “to engage in viewpoint-based suppression of protected free speech.”

    Responding to the hysteria surrounding his initial injunction, Doughty also wrote:

    Although this Preliminary Injunction involves numerous agencies, it is not as broad as it appears. “It only prohibits something the Defendants have no legal right to do—contacting social media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner, the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms. 

    Rejecting the administration’s argument that the order could chill law enforcement activity to protect national security, the judge added that It also contains numerous exceptions for communications related to criminal activity, explicit dangers to national security, and foreign election interference.

    Meanwhile, this important battle will continue as the AGs’ lawsuit works its way through the legal system.

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Amanda Head: Fox News Ratings Beat By MSNBC!

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    0

    Is Fox News losing its touch?

    Watch Amanda explain the controversy below:

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    123...40Page 1 of 40
    © Great America News Desk 2022