Going on the Offensive Against Censorship

Senator Eric Schmitt quarterbacks appropriations amendment.

Senator Eric Schmitt is going on the offensive!

Senator from Missouri, Eric Schmitt will be offering an defunding amendment to the appropriations bills that currently capitalize the government’s vast censorship enterprise. He is right, we can no longer allow “the leviathan of government agencies to silence Americans.” Stay tuned for more details on this, as we can use our “people’s army” to garner support from our own senators.

For those that don’t know, then Missouri ex-AG (now Senator) Schmitt and ex-AG (now governor) Jeff Landry began the ongoing Murthy v. Missouri Supreme Court case against the Biden White House which is currently before the SCOTUS.

Senator Schmitt has been an early champion of shutting down the government’s psywar campaign on the American people.

After leading on filing Murthy vs Missouri (formerly Missouri vs Biden), Schmitt then went on to be elected Senator of Missouri, and Jeff Landry became governor of Louisiana, the court case had to be passed onto others to pursue. That team is now doing an excellent job.

As a Senator, I expect him to continue to fight for our constitutionally protected right to Free Speech. This makes him a hero in my eyes.

The line of questioning by the Justices in the Murthy v. Missouri Supreme court case this week really should not be a surprise. Jonathon Turley had an excellent piece covering this published in The Hill today.

In Murthy v. Missouri, the court is considering a massive censorship system coordinated by federal agencies and social media companies. This effort was ramped up under President Joe Biden, who is arguably the most anti-free speech president since John Adams. Biden has accused companies of “killing people” by resisting demands to censor opposing views. Even though the administration was dead wrong on many pandemic-related issues, ranging from the origin of COVID-19 to the efficacy of masks, thousands were banned, throttled or blacklisted for pointing this out.

Biden’s sole nominee on the court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, has long been an enigma on the issue of free speech. That is why these oral arguments had some alarming moments. While her two liberal colleagues suggested that some communications may not be coercive as opposed to persuasive, Jackson would have none of it. She believed that coercion is perfectly fine under the right circumstances, including during periods like a pandemic or other national emergencies claimed by the government. When dangerous information is spotted on social media sites in such periods, she seemed to insist, the government should feel free to “tell them to take it down.”

Just to be clear, many of us are still banned on various platforms. Evidently, I am permanently banned on Linked-in. Meta still shadow bans my very name (no, I don’t have an account), as does TikToc. Google selectively chooses hit pieces on their front page of the search engine for my name, in a well-strategized “wrap-up smear” campaign that has gone on now for years. I am not alone in being harassed like this, and yes, the fist of government is clearly behind all of this. It is clear that the government’s reign of censorship and propaganda isn’t over yet, even though the COVIDcrisis is.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaking on the government and free speech:

One of the more interesting testimonies in the Supreme Court this week came from
Henry Whitaker, Florida's solicitor general, who laid out an excellent case for the court to consider. He argued that big tech is applying censorship policies "in an inconsistent manner" to "deplatform" certain users.

"They contend that they possess a broad First Amendment right to censor anything they host on their sites, even when doing so contradicts their own representations to consumers. But the design of the First Amendment is to prevent the suppression of speech, not to enable it."

As the Supreme Court seems to be leaning towards putting the administrative state’s right to control the populace to “keep them safe” over our rights to Free Speech, it may be time for Congress to strengthen the laws protecting free speech in this country.

This case has had a lot of alternative media coverage, so I am just adding to the chorus of voices that are very concerned about how the SCOTUS ruling on this case could affect us all. But we have to keep this issue front and center of both the upcoming elections and Congress.

In order for real change to occur, it will require both the Senate and the House to be controlled by Republicans, that we have a Republican president and for Mitch McConnell to no longer be in charge or the Senate. November looms large, folks.

We all need to work to ensure that we, the people, take back as many institutions of power as we possibly can in the next election, and we have to work to ensure that this issue remains front and center in the public eye.

---

In other news, the latest episode of “Fallout” has gone live.

How Shadowy Forces Control What Science Gets Published | FALLOUT

(Link below to the full episode)

Modern science relies on open inquiry, active discussion, and a never-ending pursuit of truth. At least that’s what we have all been told.

But these days, there are powerful information cartels controlling what gets funded, what gets studied, and what gets published. We live in an era of scientific gatekeepers dictating what “science” is allowed to say—and global organizations that claim to “own the science.”

The most recent example involves the retraction of the first peer-reviewed article calling for a global moratorium on the COVID-19 genetic shots.

In this episode of Fallout, we explore how the scientific publication process works, and how it can be corrupted.

In the era of information warfare, does peer review still work?

This episode is a “must watch” for those who wish to understand how the scientific endeavor has been become so broken.

“Who is Robert Malone” is a peer reviewed publication. Please consider a subscription to support our work.