Black Men Suing Hyundai Plant for Racial Discrimination: Denied Promotions, Required to Call White Manager ‘Master’

From [HERE] Hyundai Motor Manufacturing of Alabama is the subject of another racial discrimination lawsuit - this time filed by five Black men who say they were denied promotions, punished with writeups and, in one instance, told to report to a white manager who was referred to as “master.”

The 34-page lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for Alabama’s Middle District, comes a month after former HMMA Director of Administration Yvette Gilkey-Shuford sued the company for racial and gender discrimination. The new suit seeks back pay, lost benefits, compensatory and punitive damages.

Robert Burns, vice president of human resources and administration for HMMA, said the company does not comment on the details of pending litigation.

“HMMA provides a workplace free of discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, national origin or ancestry, citizenship status, physical or mental disability, genetic information, veteran status, uniformed service member status or any other status protected by federal, state or local law,” Burns said in a statement.

According to the suit, Blacks can only rise to a certain managerial level, but comprise a larger percentage of workers who are subjected to more physically demanding work. One of the men details how, once he applied for a higher leadership position, the vacancy was withdrawn.

On another occasion in 2020, the suit states, a white manager approached a group of about 30 Black employees, saying their supervisor, who he referred to as “master,” wanted them inside. When informed the language was offensive, the manager ignored them.

The plant’s “rank-and-file employees fear a culture of retaliation and reprisal if they report discriminatory conduct within the plant,” the suit states.

The five men also allege that Hyundai keeps a list of employees who make discrimination complaints, and that employees can be denied promotion, disciplined, demoted or terminated for making complaints. This despite the Hyundai workforce being staffed by about 85% Black employees.

One challenged several disciplinary measures and was told by other employees, “they want you fired.” Another contends he was terminated after disciplinary measures that were harsher than for his white coworkers for similar infractions.

Another took an extended medical leave. When he returned, he was told he had been reassigned to chassis marriage, one of the more physically demanding jobs, which does not align with company policy following medical leave, the suit states.

Artur Davis, who is co-representing the men, said the four still employed at Hyundai “are risking good paying jobs by standing up for their rights,” he said.

“They are frustrated but they refuse to work on a plantation and no one is their master,” Davis said.

Federal Judge Rules Corpse Biden's Fake Federal Student Debt Relief Plan Unconstitutional

From [HERE] On Thursday, November 11, Judge Mark Pittman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas released a decision that found the Biden-Harris administration’s Federal Student Debt Relief Plan was unconstitutional.

Judge Pittman ruled that because the issue of student loan forgiveness is of great “economic and political significance,” and the Department of Education is required to show that it has clear authorization from Congress for the program. Pittman found that the Department did not prove that it had this authorization. He said: “no one can plausibly deny that [the program] is either one of the largest delegations of legislative power to the executive branch or one of the largest exercises of legislative power without congressional authority in the history of the United States.”

The ruling is the result of a lawsuit filed by the Job Creators Network Foundation, a conservative advocacy group. The group filed the complaint on behalf of borrowers who were ineligible to receive full or partial relief from the program, arguing that the administration violated federal procedures by denying borrowers the ability to provide public comment before the program was launched. The group also asserted that the administration lacked proper legislative authority over the program.

The Biden-Harris administration maintains that the Student Debt Relief Plan can be implemented under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act (HERO Act, H.R. 1412), which allows the Secretary of Education to waive federal student loan repayments during national emergencies. The administration, which recently signaled that it will continue the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) declaration, contends that COVID-19 qualifies as a national emergency.

Department of Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said that the Department is “disappointed” in the ruling. He added that “we are not standing down,” revealing that the Department of Justice has appealed the decision. The loan forgiveness program, for which 16 million applications have been approved for and over 26 million borrowers have applied to without approval yet, will remain in limbo until the Northern District of Texas decision and other lawsuits are resolved.

The moratorium on student loan repayments will only be valid until January 1, 2022. The Biden-Harris administration said in August that the most recent extension was their final, meaning that borrowers will likely be expected to start paying their loans at the end of this year unless President Biden takes action. While the administration has not provided any signs that their decision to halt the moratorium has changed, given the pause on the loan forgiveness program due to legal challenges and the extension of the COVID-19 PHE declaration, it would not be surprising if the moratorium was again extended in the near future.

Please visit AG Study Guide to read our previous coverage of the Student Debt Relief Program and moratorium developments.

Congress Pledged $4 Billion to Black Farmers, but reversed its decision after public pressure. Now, those farmers are suing US Government

From [HERE] The US government doubled back on its pledge to allocate $4 billion in debt relief specifically to Black and minority farmers—originally a part of the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act—after the program received backlash from white farmers who claimed they were excluded from the relief based on racial discrimination. Now, farmers of color who were expecting payments are suing.

The debt relief, which Congress originally aimed towards “socially disadvantaged farmers (SDFs),” was considered a small step in repaying farmers of color for a long history of discrimination and disenfranchisement. Monetarily speaking, discrimination throughout the 20th century cost Black farmers $326 billion in land loss alone.

After the program was stalled by lawsuits from farmers who found it unfair, the provision was ultimately repealed. Now, instead of directing the debt relief specifically to SDFs—a definition that included Black, Native American, Hispanic and Asian farmers—the new language offers loan forgiveness based on economic need and not race.

However, in  an effort to avoid the courtroom, the government has landed in another class action lawsuit, this time on behalf of the National Black Farmers Association. According to the plaintiffs, including the association’s founder, John Boyd, the US breached a contract by going back on the arrangement to distribute the funds among socially disadvantaged farmers.

As a part of the original debt relief plan, the Agriculture Department’s Farm Service Agency sent letters to farmers that would have qualified for the loan forgiveness, assigning potential dollar amounts of debt that each farmer could expect to be covered. According to Roll Call, a few of the now-plaintiffs in the lawsuit borrowed extra money in light of the letters and are facing financial woes as a result of the relief never coming.

​​“They did not receive the benefit for which they had bargained,” says the complaint, which was filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims on Oct. 7. “They suffered financial damage in reliance on the U.S. government’s promises by making purchases they are now unable to afford.”

The lawsuit is filed as a class action, allowing for more farmers to join the case.

Black Quisling AG Letitia James Using the Buffalo "Massacre" to Seek Gov Control of "Unverified Livestreams" and Punish Those who Show Video Revealing False Flags like the Bloodless Buffalo Shooting

ACCORDING TO FUNKTIONARY:

Quisling – the name for a traitor, coined in April, 1940, meaning one who is content to accept the yoke of the conqueror for the sake of being given office and trinkets, even against the feeling and expression of the conquered people, and moreover, prepared to use the force continuum against his/her own people to impose the conquerors decrees. (See: SNAGs)

From [HERE] According to the government and its dependent media on May 14, 2022, a gunman traveled to Buffalo, New York, and opened fire in a grocery store while broadcasting on the livestreaming platform Twitch. The shooting, which killed ten people and injured three others, outlasted the broadcast — within two minutes, Twitch detected that the video depicted a shooting in progress, cut the feed, and took it down. 

Twitch’s response was not good enough for New York Attorney General Letitia James, who last month released an investigative report examining the role of social media in the shooting and urging changes to federal and state law to rein in livestreaming and video sharing. Unfortunately, many of those policy recommendations — which include a forced “tape delay” for unverified livestreams, civil penalties for “distribution” of footage of “violent criminal content,” and which rely on expansive definitions of “incitement” and “obscenity” — would violate the First Amendment.

Guard-Dogma Prevents Unsight-Seeing Sheople from Watching the Buffalo FF Video. ‘As if existence depends on their seeing; and if They don’t see then the thing disappears.’ No Bullets/Blood are Visible [MORE]

Human beings only bleed when they get shot by a high powered rifle at close range in the movies?

Public officials like Attorney General James claim to be seeking ways to reduce the incidence of unspeakably tragic mass shootings in this country. But they must be careful not to sacrifice Americans’ civil liberties in the process. As ACLU President Anthony Romero said in the wake of 9/11, “Pursuing security at the expense of freedom is a dangerous and self-defeating proposition for a democracy.”

In the case of the Attorney General’s recommendations, it is far from clear that the illiberal policies proposed will purchase any security at all. They rest on the deeply unconvincing premise that the law can deter a mass killer from filming their murderous attack when the law is not enough to deter the attack itself.

A slew of unconstitutional proposals

The attorney general’s report makes a series of recommendations that, if enacted, will threaten the First Amendment rights of internet users and platforms. The report recommends: 

• Criminalizing the creation of videos or images of a homicide by the person committing it, or by others acting “in concert” with the killer.

• Imposing civil penalties on individuals who distribute or transmit such content and on platforms that fail to take “reasonable steps to prevent unlawful violent criminal content (and solicitation and incitement thereof) from appearing on the platform.”

• Reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to remove platforms’ immunity from liability for user-generated content if they fail to take these “reasonable steps.”

• Defining “reasonable steps” to include restrictions on livestreaming, including broadcast delays and limiting algorithmic promotion for livestreams by users who are unverified, have few followers, or fail to meet other “trust factors.”

The report attempts — and fails — to justify the constitutionality of these restrictions using two primary rationales.

Broadening incitement and obscenity

Broadly speaking, the First Amendment significantly limits the government’s power to regulate, burden, or prohibit speech unless it falls into an unprotected category such as “true threats,” “child pornography,” or “perjury” — content-based restrictions outside of these categories are subject to, and rarely survive, a strict scrutiny analysis. To justify its proposed speech regulations, New York’s report attempts to stretch two of these unprotected categories — “incitement” and “obscenity” — beyond their strict legal definitions. 

Referring to videos of homicide, like that which was live-streamed by the Buffalo shooter, the report claims: “Such videos are an extension of the original criminal act and serve to incite or solicit additional criminal acts. In addition, these videos are obscene on their face.” 

As legal analysis, both of these contentions miss the mark. 

While “incitement” and “obscenity,” properly defined, are not protected by the First Amendment, those exceptions capture a far narrower range of speech than the report suggests. 

Incitement

“Incitement” is shorthand for the category of unprotected speech the Supreme Court described in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which held that speech provoking unlawful activity loses First Amendment protection only if it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Notably, courts, including the Supreme Court in Brandenburg and Hess v. Indiana, have rejected the idea that general advocacy for violence at some unspecified future time falls outside the First Amendment’s protection. 

Nevertheless, the report claims, “Even a short video of a mass shooting can be used to incite others to engage in copycat crimes and serve the criminal goals of the perpetrator.” But even granting that such a video is intended to incite others to commit a copycat mass shooting, it doesn’t meet the imminence requirement of the incitement standard, as it is extremely unlikely anyone would plan and execute a similar crime immediately after witnessing a mass shooting. Generally speaking, these videos and their accompanying manifestos are not intended to lead to immediate action, but to urge others to begin thinking about doing the same. In this sense, the report’s authors may mean “incite” in a colloquial — rather than legal — sense, akin to “inspire.” But inspiring crime doesn’t render speech unprotected.

Our courts were right to set the bar for incitement so high. The First Amendment protects an enormous amount of political advocacy in all political quarters. It is untenable to hold a speaker legally responsible for the criminal actions of others who might have been inspired by the speaker’s words. This unjust rationale has been used to justify the prosecution of organizers of peaceful protests for the actions of a small number of violent participants. (See: NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, the Chicago Seven, and, for a more recent civil case, Doe v. Mckesson.) 

Nor should speakers face punishment based on a prediction that their public expression will inspire others to commit violent or unlawful acts at some point in the future. A standard based on such a tenuous and speculative connection between speech and action would inevitably invite abuse by those who seek to silence their political opponents. Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s calls for nonviolent resistance prompted accusations that he was inciting violence, leading the FBI, which infamously surveilled King, to call him “the most dangerous Negro of the future in this Nation.” 

Our national political conversation is filled with impassioned speech on polarizing, high-stakes issues like abortion, policing, gun control, immigration, and climate change. Empowering the government to crack down on speech that might inspire someone, somewhere, at some time to commit violence would be calamitous for free expression, and the government would no doubt repurpose that authority to target disfavored views. As writer Kevin Drum put it, “We can’t allow the limits of our political spirit to be routinely dictated by the worst imaginable consequences.” 

Even advocacy that intentionally urges people to break the law merits protection. In Hess, an anti-war protestor was convicted for saying, “We’ll take the fucking street later,” before the Supreme Court overturned his conviction because his speech “amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.” Encouragement of civil disobedience has had a central role in the evolution of the First Amendment jurisprudence — the incitement standard in Brandenburg replaced the looser “clear and present danger” test announced in Schenck v. United States, a case that upheld a conviction under the Espionage Act for encouraging men to dodge the World War I draft.

Various political philosophies advocate lawbreaking to institute new political systems, including communism, various schools of anarchism, and strains of monarchism. In fact, our First Amendment was written and ratified by men who advocated for overturning a standing government — and did so. Proscribing the general advocacy of lawbreaking would be untenable, ahistorical, and arguably un-American. 

As the Supreme Court has recognized, speech “may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.” Of course, people are free to criticize inflammatory or revolutionary rhetoric and its potential consequences, but the First Amendment properly restrains the government from extinguishing speech it considers too fiery.

Obscenity

The report’s claim that images or video of a homicide are “obscene on their face” is similarly unsupported by legal precedent. As a threshold matter, the Supreme Court in Miller v. California made clear that for something to be legally obscene, it must be sexual in nature. 

Graphic violence is not what the obscenity exception contemplates. As the Supreme Court bluntly put it in striking down a law barring the sale of certain violent video games to minors, “speech about violence is not obscene.”

None of the attorney general’s proposed restrictions on the creation or dissemination of images and videos can be justified under the incitement or obscenity exceptions to the First Amendment. And, as described below, such restrictions will have the unfortunate effect of restricting significant amounts of valuable speech.

From questionably constitutional to blatantly unconstitutional

The report recommends establishing a criminal penalty to punish the creation of videos or images of a homicide by the person committing it, or by others acting “in concert” with the killer. (Notably, the report recommends that those drafting the law be careful not to penalize bystanders or police with body cameras.)

First and foremost, this penalty seems extraordinarily unlikely to deter a killer from filming or photographing a murder and trying to disseminate it. If the law against murder won’t deter the killer from killing, why would a law deter them from filming that murder, especially when they often don’t plan on surviving their crime? Legally, it’s at-best unclear whether the government can impose criminal liability for a perpetrator’s act of filming his crime, as distinct from their commission of the crime itself. The act of filming a crime is generally a protected exercise of First Amendment rights, and the report’s authors do not provide a persuasive justification for why it would be constitutional to prohibit filming in this circumstance.

The report shifts from recommending questionably constitutional speech-related penalties for the shooter to certainly unconstitutional civil penalties on people who simply share a video of a homicide. Neither the person who shares the video nor the online platform that carries it can be liable for those acts. Again, speech does not lose First Amendment protection merely because it depicts violence. 

Troublingly, the report’s authors apparently fail to see or care about why someone might share such images besides trying to glorify a killer or encourage violence. Some of these other purposes are squarely in the public interest — for example, to highlight police or policy failures during the shooting, to engage in the academic study of violence or murder, or to train police and members of the public in how to respond to such situations. 

Images of violence and death have carried profound social and political significance: Think of the video of George Floyd’s murder, the Zapruder film, video of the 9/11 attacks, the photo of Emmett Till’s dead body, Kim Phuc Phan Thi (“Napalm Girl”), and various photos and videos of war crimes. These images shock the conscience and may invoke feelings of sympathy or disgust that can be extremely powerful tools when advocating for political changes intended to stop such acts in the future. And that holds true whether the image was captured by the perpetrator or a bystander.

The report’s authors, in arguing those uninvolved in the underlying crime should face legal penalties for video distribution, rely on court decisions involving child sexual abuse material:

The distribution of CSAM material has been upheld as speech integral to illegal conduct — without a market for CSAM material, there would be no motivation to create such material.

But the operative logic of child pornography jurisprudence falls apart when you substitute one situation for the other:

The distribution of [videos of murder] has been upheld as speech integral to illegal conduct — without a market for [videos of murder], there would be no motivation to [make videos of murder].

There is no evidence that prohibiting distribution of videos of murder would deter those who make the videos — who, again, may not plan to survive — from murdering in the first place. Nor is there any reason to think they would be deterred from filming the crime should they possess the knowledge that it will be illegal for others to share. Mass murderers are not known for their regard for others’ well-being. 

As UCLA Law professor and First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh points out: 

Some of the mass killers may be motivated by the desire for fame, but that will generally come entirely apart from the images of the killings themselves (as we’ve often seen with regard to [past] mass killings). It’s hard to imagine someone who’s committing the killing simply to have other people see the images that he or his coconspirators have taken, and who would be deterred by the prospect that those images would no longer be legally available.

A killer’s desire for notoriety or fame isn’t solely reliant on a film they themselves produce. Given that the report’s recommendations would exempt bystander or police footage, there’s no reason to think the killer couldn’t achieve similar notoriety without livestreaming or otherwise filming themselves, casting further doubt that this restriction on speech would have any deterrent effect. 

If the purpose is to shut down avenues by which a killer could achieve notoriety, the same logic can be used to argue that journalists should not be allowed to cover mass murders — a similarly unconstitutional result. 

Gun Ownership Among Black People Rising Nationwide in Spite of Propaganda by White Do-Gooders [If Someone Prevents You from Defending Yourself from Crime Doesn't that Make Them an Accessory to Crime?]

Recent data from the National Shooting Sports Foundation shows that gun purchases by Black Americans rose 58% during the first half of 2022. [MORE]

‘Elite Whites Speak Through Their Wooden Dummy:’ Black Puppetician Hakeem Jeffries becoming House Democrats’ next leader Has Nothing to Do with Black Power or Helping Black People

From [HERE] The rolebotic Crown Heights native told The New Republic’s How to Save a Country podcast that he got interested in public service because of the 1992 L.A. riots. “I remember saying to myself, You know, we’ve come a long way as a country. We still have a long way to go,” he said. “But I do want to go off to law school, get involved in trying to use my law degree to fight for the principles of equal protection under the law — liberty and justice for all — in the purest possible way.” He acted on that desire by becoming a litigation associate for Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, one of the most profitable law firms in the world, and then a “highly paid litigator” for CBS, fighting lawsuits against the media giant. He “was one of our best litigation associates,” said Ted Wells, co-chairman of the litigation department at Jeffries’s old firm, in 2007. “He was a star and continues to be a star.”

His corporate-centrist inclinations are consistent with the evolving role of the Congressional Black Caucus. Once viewed as a thorn in the side of party leaders because of its agitation on behalf of everyday Black people, the self-styled “conscience of Congress” has gotten much bigger and more influential in its 51 years. Now the CBC resembles more of a professional organization for protecting incumbents and advancing the careers of its members. Its strong ties with sketchy corporate partners — including Walmart and Altria (formerly Philip Morris) — illustrate how far it has traveled from the margins of influence to the center. The shift has also made the organization flexible with its stated principles. It purports to withhold endorsements in races for open seats in which two Black candidates are running, but it gladly threw its weight behind moderate Shontel Brown when she faced leftist Nina Turner in their Ohio primary this year. In 2020, after white incumbent Eliot Engel said he “wouldn’t care” about a Bronx anti-police-abuse event if he “didn’t have a primary,” Jeffries supported him against Black challenger Jamaal Bowman.

Jeffries is a closer contemporary to Bowman, Ocasio-Cortez, and Cori Bush than to Pelosi, James Clyburn, and other members of the party’s gerontocratic leadership. Yet perhaps his defining in-caucus alliance is with Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, one of the most conservative Democratic congressmen, who has threatened to blow up Biden’s agenda to defend tax breaks for the wealthy. Together with Alabama’s Terri Sewell, they formed the Team Blue PAC last year to protect incumbents against primaries from their left — which doubles as a warning shot to newly elected leftists such as Summer Lee and Maxwell Frost.

All of which calls into question what making the Democratic Party leadership class younger and Blacker actually means. If the biggest changes to Democratic policy and governance of the past several years have been the leftward shift driven by younger and less white officials, then the Brooklyn congressman has not been a meaningful part of it. On the contrary, he has often been an impediment. His reward has been a rapid ascent up the party’s ranks secured by endearing himself to its elders and siding with longtime incumbents and party leaders even as they’ve grown out of touch with their constituents. Much will be made of the historic nature of his promotion and the change it appears to signify. But for the party Establishment, the benefit of this generational change appears to be stasis.

Stroked Out White Man Who Can Barely Talk and Wears the Same Shit Everyday Elected to US Senate – Such is the Nature of White Presumacy [Supremacy]

[MORE]

According to FUNKTIONARY:

white supremacy – White Presumacy. (See: Racism, Windigo, Yurugu, Western Civilization & White Presumacy)

Racism White Supremacy - psychopathic degeneracy. 2) "The local and global power system and dynamic, structured and maintained by persons who classify themselves as white, whether consciously or subconsciously determined, which consists of patterns of perception, logic, symbol formation, thought, speech, action and emotional response, as conducted simultaneously in all areas of people activity (economics, education, entertainment, labour, law, politics, religion, sex and war); for the ultimate purpose of white genetic survival and to prevent white genetic annihilation on planet earth—a planet upon which the vast majority of people are classified as non-white (Black, Brown, Red and Yellow) by white skinned people, and all of the nonwhite people are genetically dominant (in terms of skin coloration) compared to the genetic recessive white skin people." -Dr. Francis Cress Welsing, MD. Hate and oppression can never reign. Only love is supreme. [MORE]

"Political Silence:" Barking and Clapping Like Seals, the Black Electorant Voted for Warnock and Others But Can’t Articulate Why. White Liberals Offer No Black Message or Agenda b/c They Don’t Have to

ACCORDING TO FUNKTIONARY:

political silence – the study of the art of control. 2) censored and muted voices of the dispossessed always strengthens those privileged by the status quo. Scientists who actually engage in scientific inquiries do not take votes. (See: Voting)

“VENTRILOQUIST AS VOICE, THE ILLUSION OF CHOICE.” About twenty years ago Norman Kelley observed that black people had become political weaklings, “complicit in their own political emasculation.” At one time Black Americans forcefully argued for their own seat at the table but now in their relations with the democrat party they function like trained seals or dogs that “bark and clap” at election time and shut-up afterwards. Black people, once envied and imitated by people seeking freedom throughout the world are now demobilized and have no effective political organizations, no real leaders and “black politics” is void of any substance.

For example, Blacks barked and clapped for Warnock in Georgia, like they were told by white liberals. Although much has been made of their close Senate race, it was never close amongst Black voters who automatically sided with incumbent democrat Warnock from the beginning and with rare exceptions, have expressed strongly negative feelings toward Walker, the former University of Georgia football star. Elie Mystal, a TV appointed “black pundit” imposed onto Blacks by elite whites at MSNBC, sums up the way Blacks have been told to think about the race; Walker is “unintelligent” and bereft of “independent thoughts” and “Republicans back Walker because he is going to do what he’s told ... That’s what Republicans want from their negroes: to do what they’re told.” Perhaps that is true, but Mystal’s purpose apparently was to draw a sharp contrast between Warnock and Walker – something that is not factually possible if he’s contending that Warnock functions as an independent free-agent, bucking the party line to deliver tangible solutions to the black community. Although Warnock was the senior pastor for Martin Luther King Jr’s church, the Ebenezer Baptist Church, he is no rebel. King sacrificed his life for Black people in a failed effort to neutralize white supremacy – he didn’t get his talking points or marching orders from white liberals or borrow substance from white folk. Even Hershel Walker, whom we are told is one the dumbest niggers in the world, observed that Warnok supports and parrots whatever the Democrat party leadership wants and voted with Biden 96% time. Warnock probably also believes Walker is one of the dumbest niggers in the world but only because Dems told him so. Like Walker, Warnock is a potted plant on the Dems stage, a member of The MoTeaSuh Tribe. Or as FUNKTIONARY explains, another “politically dis-appointed kneegrow who panders to Massah’s agenda—Mo’ Tea Sir?” No matter how intelligent or talented he may be, Democrats also expect “their negros” to serve them well. The black votary dogmatically votes for Warnock and others by default as it’s no longer concerned with whether its politics function to solve Black problems; it just votes against republicans.

NYC MAYOR ERIC ADAMS, A BLACK VASSAL.

ACCORDING TO FUNKTIONARY:

The Moteasuh Tribe – the miseducated coin-operated buck-dancing, sole-shuffling, politically dis-appointed kneegrows who pander to Massah’s agenda—Mo’ Tea Sir? This tribe of sorry-ass kneegrows follow the dictates and even orchestrates the marching bandits of racism white supremacy as spewed forth from the mouthpieces of political power within the borders of the Witches Castle. It’s the Condi-Clarence-Powell complex—that is, those who do Massah’s bidding as if you weren’t kidding yourself that you were doing otherwise. Keep your eyes on the lies, the liars, and the disguise.

In reality, Warnock and an army of thousands of other black elected rolebots at all levels of government are not engaged in any “black politics” and have no “black political philosophy,” no “Black agenda” or black messaging or organizing and no explanation to account for the system of racism white supremacy affecting all aspects of black people’s lives or any response to the war being waged on law abiding Black people by police. Said black puppeticians have non-white skin and black chromosomes but for all non-cosmetic purposes they are interchangeable with their white liberal counterparts; looking and sounding like them reading from the same script. “Blackness” and “black politics” has come to mean ‘not Republican’ and not much else. Black politics has gone from being aggressively results oriented and highly organized to being tame activity channelled into voting for the Democratic Party and its grimacing white liberal and black borg candidates.

The Black electorant automatically presumes that most white republicans are racist and most white liberals are not racist. According to this clogic (means fucked up logic) Black voters are comfortable voting for liberal do-gooders without critical examination of their legislative records, campaign proposals or particularized sets of plans for Black people. For decades now, the Black votary has been electing liberals in places dominated by white liberal politics. Based on the clogic that most liberal whites aren’t racist, the quality of life and citizenship for Black residents in liberal jurisdictions should materially speak for itself and it should be far superior to living conditions for Blacks living in in republican jurisdictions- the places where most of the racists reside.

If liberal jurisdictions are ‘racist free’ then who is it cramming the jails and courtrooms with Blacks in NYC, Milwaukee, Chicago, Columbus, Minnesota, Washington D.C., Philadelphia, Oakland, Atlanta, Kansas City, St. Louis, Detroit, New Orleans and others? Who is striking Blacks from juries? Who is evicting Black tenants from their homes for failure to pay rent during the government’s COVID lockdowns? Who is providing a servant (mis)education to black children? Who is running the public fool systems? Who is gentrifying neighborhoods, dislocating Black families, businesses and making blacks homeless? Who is failing to protect law abiding black people in their segregated communities and preventing them from arming themselves in self-defense from criminals? Who is surveilling, stopping, frisking, and searching law abiding Blacks at will on a daily basis? Whose police officers frequently brutalize and murder blacks with impunity? The answer is racist, white liberals. Specifically, white liberal; judges, prosecutors, jurors, landlords, government authorities, administrators, police officers, school teachers, school administrators, real estate agents, bankers, doctors, business owners, creditors etc., in places where the majority of Black people reside in the US.

In liberal jurisdictions racist liberals work together to dominate and control non-white people in all areas of people activity. Racism is a team effort, it is collective white behavior and collective white power or a conspiracy among white individuals and/or groups of white people to impersonally control and/or dominate non-white people. For instance, liberal authorities control Rykers Island, an overwhelmingly Black/Latino jail. Racist republicans aren’t imported into NYC to fuck up the jail. Individual white, liberal authorities maintain its reprehensible, filthy and dangerous state; it has a rate of violence 8X greater than other municipal jails. Recently Eric Tavira, a young Latino man, hung himself to avoid dealing with the foul conditions inside. A white, liberal judge had detained him there on a misdemeanor at the request of white, liberal prosecutors who sought high bail ($20k) to placate white liberal citizens who demand un-payable bail to keep poor Blacks and Latinos locked-up after arrest so they can feel safer. White liberal residents felt safer for the 16 months Tavira was held pre-trial – his trial delayed due to the busy court calendar, overloaded with other non-whites by white liberal judges and prosecutors. Similarly, a group of white NYPD cops recently beat and smothered a naked black man to death as they held him down in the street. His name was Daniel Prude. Afterwards the liberal media (elite white liberals), police union (controlled by white liberals), his fellow cops and the DA (beholden to elite white liberals), upheld and supported the white cops’ right to do so; no cops were charged or even fired over his murder. Importantly, black people should understand that racist conduct by white liberal government authorities in particular, is done on behalf and at the request of liberal racist citizens – the so-called allies of the black votary. Power napping Blacks describing themselves as woke need to wake the fuck up and stop barking and clapping like animals for those who are deceiving them. Republicans may indeed be enemies of Black people but Blacks are their own enemy if they mindlessly believe that Democrats aren’t also a “white party” and racist liberals aren’t presently strangling Black people to death while making it look like they are dying from natural causes. White liberal do-gooders are clowning Blacks. Never participate in your destruction.

Norman Kelley made five excellent arguments. Due to space limitations only a few will be discussed here and cannot be restated any better by BW;

1) Voting has not led to Black power or solving Black people’s problems,

2) Democrats have no messaging or organizing aimed at black people,

3) black political leadership has vanished and even where it exists it does merely as HNIC leadership as a performance act

4) Black Political Organizations in the Post--Civil Rights Era are ineffective at retail politics and wholly beholden to elite whites and

5) the black votary gets nothing for their vote as they are ignored by Republicans and taken for granted by democrats, who know there will be no repercussions for doing so.

1) Voting has not led to Black power or solving Black people’s problems. First of all, it is white propaganda that black people don’t vote. Although they are only 13% of the US population, black voters are among the most stable voting bloc in politics, despite the concerted efforts to stop them.

The overblown value of the vote itself is the real ‘propAgenda’ here; the more scarce elites make the vote, the more valuable it appears to be – but this is maya. Dr. Amos Wilson explains the Dependent Media and other vested interests ‘strive strenuously to convince the Black electorate that every conceivable problem which confronts it can be resolved through voting heavily for Black and friendly White politicians. The media is ever quick to remind the Black electorate of the historical struggles necessary to achieve their right to vote. It indicts the community for its electoral apathy and seeks to evoke guilt feelings in those who do not participate in the electoral process — making such ritualistic participation emblematic of democracy and first-class citizenship.’ Most importantly however, Wilson explains, “This is of special interest when it is realized that very few, if any, of the major political, economic and social goals achieved by Black America, including the Voting Rights Act, were accomplished through Black voting prowess. The ballot box has been a relatively impotent weapon in the achievement of major victories by the Black community. Suddenly vigorous protest and direct-action legal suits and extralegal processes such as boycotts, sit-ins, and the like, which were used so effectively by the community to achieve its sociopolitical ends and to fight injustice and oppression, have fallen far behind the election of Black politicians to achieve the same ends.”

Kelly writes, “As the 1960s black freedom movement moved "from protest to politics," community and protest leaders became incorporated into the routines of the country's political system. By the 1970s, some of these leaders became, in effect, a national black political directorate, with power centered in the Congressional Black Caucus. Meanwhile, black America retired itself from the kind of political action that disrupted business as usual. Political energy was channeled into voting, the only legitimate form of redress of grievance as seen by dominant political elites.’ In other words, Black individuals stopped engaging in aggressive political activity as business as usual and began passively waiting every two – four years for white liberals to present them with s[elected] candidates to choose from. As a group Blacks had been engaged as a whole in their struggle for freedom and were a source of agitation to the vested interests with highly organized boycotts (not weak threats), sit-ins, walk-outs, organized protests and other activities. Said politics were solely intended to solve Black people’s problems, capture the attention of elites and most importantly to get results. However, post-civil rights, Blacks have functioned in a child like state, constant consumers of products, mindless enterstainment and social media, as if all their problems have been magically solved.

Elected Black puppeticians and appointed strawboss authorities at all levels of government have not translated into power for Black people. Black people have no power to prevent racists from practicing racism and no power to force remedies even for the most egregious injustices. Black people should witness that Minnesota, Atlanta, St. Louis, Cleveland, Baltimore or NYC or many other places where cops murder Blacks in broad daylight are all already dominated by liberal Democrats duly elected by a participating black votary. NYC, for instance is dominated by white liberal puppeticians. Among its liberal leaders NYC has a Black mayor (Eric Adams), Black Attorney Generals (Alvin Bragg, Manhattan) (Letitia James Brooklyn), Black state Assembly Leader (Carl Heastie Bronx), Black Public Advocate (Jumaane Williams Brooklyn), Black DA (Darcel Clark, Bronx), Black Borough President (Donovan Richards Queens) and numerous Black judges. Add to this Black legislators who hold 13 of 51 seats on the City Council, 22 of 150 seats in the state Assembly, and eight of 63 seats in the state Senate. There are also four Black congressional representatives —Gregory Meeks, Hakeem Jeffries, Yvette Clarke, and Jamaal Bowman and hundreds of liberal democrats all levels of government who dominate City politics and government agencies. Although voter turnout amongst Blacks in ‘the mecca’ is high, the quality of Black citizenship stays low; law abiding Blacks are frequently stopped and searched by police in their neighborhoods or cars, Blacks and Latinos make up 90% of all persons and arrested and charged, Rikers Jail is disproportionately packed with Blacks held pre-trial in reprehensible conditions, a majority of all homeless people are black, Black unemployment stays high, 63% of black families in New York are in the bottom half of the income distribution, blacks are routinely struck from juries, Blacks can be murdered in broad daylight by police without any accountability (Eric Garner) and so on. Wilson exaplined, ‘the electing of politicians to a bankrupt political system dominated by the ruling corporate elite whose values and aims are inimical to the cause of Black liberation; the election of Black politicians who are but pawns of the White Democratic Party machine and who seek to have the Black community identify its communal interest with the politicians' personal interests; the election of politicians who in no way are interested in developing a program for the economic emancipation and empowerment of the Black community, and who are not committed to the final overthrow of White supremacy, becomes clear when we recognize their bourgeois interests.” [MORE] Wilson also explained that the so-called Black bourgeoisie, a small number of Blacks who benefit from democrat politics, has no independent power on its own. Rather it maintains it status through its direct political and corporate ties to the Democratic party establishment.

Voting has not led to Black power in NYC or in many other places dominated by white liberals and their politics, it’s crazy to pretend otherwise.

2) Democrats have no messaging or organizing aimed at black people. As explained by Kelley ‘Democrats offer only boilerplate liberalism and no legislative initiative. And why would they need one? Democrats know they will suffer no sanctions from disgruntled blacks.’

Kelley explained Democrats essentially offer no substantial policy initiatives that benefit African-Americans and “No real agenda drives politics beyond having the Democratic candidate show up.”

‘Democrats don’t stand for anything in regard to Blacks; black people are voting against republicans but not for Democrats.

Here, Dems push so-called ‘climate change,’ limitless abortions, “infrastructure” and their Trump obsession onto Black people as if this ad-hoc collection of issues will address the myriad of problems in Black communities. Elite whites and their probots are quick to remind anyone that “Black voters are not a monolith, and their attitudes differ based on upbringing, geography and other factors.” Such a statement is as obvious as saying everybody is effected by gravity. Duh. No group of people is a monolith but it should be obvious that black people are not white people – and white people are not subjected to the system of racism white supremacy. Anon explains, “in the absence of white supremacy, niggers would not exist.” And white liberals’ menu of political concerns have little to do with the realities of daily life Black people face.

According to the Urban League’s 2022 State of Black America, Black people haven’t progressed since 1965. The Black-White disparity persists across virtually every line or indicator of life and quality of life in the United States. Black people occupy the bottom of nearly every statistical category of life. [MORE] US Census data reveals that the unemployment gap between whites and blacks is virtually unchanged over the last 50 years. The income and wealth gaps have actually widened. So has the gap in educational attainment. The jobless rate among African-Americans has remained double to whites for over 5 decades. Among other things, according a to a NY Times analysis the race gap in higher education has also widened. The median Black household income was $43,862 versus $63,823 for Whites. Blacks still trail Whites in homeownership, the traditional path to wealth building in the country, and their homes were valued less than Whites. [MORE] Norman Kelley observed that despite Black people’s heavy involvement in the Democratic Party schools have remained as segregated as before Brown v. Board of Education, which was decided 70 years ago. [MORE]

Beyond the statistical gaps and lack of opportunity, a 2022 State of Black America opinion poll revealed the constant mental anguish and insecurity Blacks endure. Blacks were far more likely than Whites to worry “about being paid less, passed over, having to work harder for the same amount, and even being discriminated against,” the poll found. Blacks were more worried about basic survival, putting food on the table, getting enough working hours, losing a job, being unable to pay the rent, and spending savings to make ends meet. [MORE]

Neely Fuller correctly states in the system of racism white supremacy Black people are subject to the direct and indirect power of elite racists in all areas of activity including Economics, Education, Entertainment, Labor, Law, Politics, religion, Sex and War. Therefore, elite racists are the direct or indirect masters of Black people. They are responsible for everything that happens or does not happen in regards to Black people.’ Fuller describes Black people as “the powerless class” because it accurately describes their power relationship between Blacks and whites. He explains, "in a socio-material system dominated by elite racists, all major decisions involving non-white people are made by elite racists. The elite racists are their bosses, their masters, and their major decision-makers. Whatever a Black person gets, and/or is allowed to keep, is the result of decisions made by elite racists. This is the functional meaning of White Supremacy (Racism) that many people — particularly Black people — prefer not to acknowledge. [MORE]

Its no surprise that Black people haven’t advanced since 1965 Black because “black politics” which apparently is now just democratic party politics is fear based and runs from the above realities. Dr. Frances Cress Welsing called this the “The Fear of Confronting White Supremacy.” Racist, white liberals have no intention of ever helping cowardly Blacks to confront the fear of white supremacy – it would undo their own hustle; maintaining master-servant relations while convincing gullible blacks that racism white supremacy is based on hatred. Racist white liberals don’t hate blacks just like dog owners don’t hate their dogs. Rather, they believe they are superior to dogs and have relations with their dogs in accord with said belief. Similarly, racist elite liberals don’t engage in arms length or equal relations with Blacks, instead, they dominate blacks or function as their masters in all areas of people activity in accord with their belief of superiority. With such a belief it is easy for them to rationalize that Blacks should naturally be in inferior positions and occupy lower levels of socio-economic life. Dr. Amos Wilson rhetorically asks;

‘Who has control of your food? Who has control of your electricity? Who has control of your water? Of your jobs? Who tells you what to wear when you go to work? Who tells you when to come to work...when to leave...when to go to lunch...how to speak...how to write...how to do this...how to do that...and how are these things taught, and how they are conditioned?"-- It is by reward and punishment. " You do this you get paid; you don't do this you don't get paid; you get a raise, you get docked. What do we have here?’

3) Black political leadership has vanished and viable, effective black political organizations are non-existent. Kelley wrote, “Essentially at this point in time and history black America is leaderless, drifting. This would not be an entirely unfortunate circumstance if it weren't for the development of a pernicious syndrome, the Head Negro in Charge (HNIC) Syndrome. This is a condition in which self-appointed 'leaders' hijack the political process by somehow appealing to blacks' sense of collectivity, while having an agenda that is mostly about themselves, making themselves the leader. This syndrome and black political demobilization have been aided, as I have suggested, by a black intelligentsia that has become more obsessed with pop culture and celebrity.’ Said charismatic HNIC leaders see “leadership as a performance” and image not as a realistic means to the end of solving black people’s problems and offering solutions or actually being held accountable to the black public. Over the past twenty years however, even the HNIC’s have slowly vanished (Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, Sharpton) and been replaced by no one. At best, the legend Ishmael Reed explains that Black political opinion in The Spectacle is articulated by elite whites through a collection of token, wooden dummies, probots or spokepersons (black tv pundits, comedians, athletes, celebrities, etc) who have no grounding in or vetting by the black community (such as Elie Mystal, Ibram X. Kendi or Ta-Nehisi Coates). Kelley explains black people have not created any long lasting, sustainable political organizations that have a meaningful impact on retail politics or on changing the conditions under which black people live. With the exception of the Nation of Islam, he further explains that there are also no organizations that are not under the control of and beholden to elite liberal whites. All black political organizations tied to HNIC leadership (Nation of Islam (Farrakhan), the National Action Network (Sharpton) and the Rainbow Coalition (Jesse)) most likely will die when their respective celebrity leader dies because said organizations solely depend upon the larger than life personalities attached to it and lack their own independent base of organization and funding. Kelley explained, “No black charismatic -- Marcus Garvey, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X -- has ever left behind an efficient organization.” [MORE]

Even BLM, which didn’t exist when Norman Kelley made his brilliant analysis, is a loose group of obedient citizens who are organized around a slogan. BLM organizes protests against unlawful police conduct and any citizens who are concerned about police lawlessness in general attend to voice anger and frustration. Contrary to the “radical” image assigned to them by elite whites in The Spectacle, BLM essentially petitions authorities to hold police accountable and they encourage voting for Democrats. However, protesting to authorities against conduct that is already illegal or engaging in advocacy to uphold the status quo through the equal enforcement of existing laws is actually really tame or conservative politics.

4) The role of blacks in the Democratic Party is simply to vote and shut the hell up. Black people and their welfare are not the end of the electoral process but merely the means for winning. As explained by Wilson, “For both parties electioneering is more of a social device for selling to the public, for shaping its opinion than for standing to account for past behavior and receiving instructions from the public regarding governance and policy decisions." [MORE] To much of the Black votary, whether Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, West Moore or Ralpael Warnock will ever deliver any tangible, material benefits or economical empowerment or provide substantive justice to the Black community is beside the point.

Claud Anderson explains, ‘Both White and Black candidates for public office get a free ride with Black voters.’

Anderson explains, “Black voters are led to believe there are two purposes to vote: 1) to elect the White candidate who is best able to lead and control resources or 2) to elect the Black candidate who is most deserving of a public job and personal recognition. The most we get is personal satisfaction that the candidate we supported won. We play politics just to play. Others play for the benefits of winning or being in the winner's circle. We often support campaign issues that do not benefit us. Blackness is excluded, but we hope that through some miraculous twinge of conscience, once in office the former candidate will offer us some spoils as supporters. We demand nothing and that is basically exactly what we get. We have yet to learn to play politics by the basic rules. We should stay out of any political game that promises that we will get nothing even when our candidate wins.“ Undeceiver Steve Cokely called this “playing for your sandwich.”

‘WHAT DOES JORDAN GET IF HE WINS? NOTHING, THE SANDWICH IS HIS. THAT’S WHITENOLOGY.’

According to FUNKTIONARY:

Two-party System – Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-dumb—working together systematically to keep you down, confused, and passively subservient to a system that is relegated to solving life’s problems and conflicts through the iron rule of political power. The real two-party system is the tail-gate and the after-party. Don’t vote—Act! Delete the Elite! Secret Ballots beget secret “government.” In order to bring in a new dawn of civilization, an advancing one, we must educate ourselves on the liberating power of symbioacracy and its four noble pillars: individuality, spirituality, noble law and knowledge—which restructure the dynamics of human relationships through the Golden Rule of serving others without being subservient to anyone while beneting all. We can invoke and activate (unleash) this dormant aspect of the Kingdom of heaven on Earth as soon as enough people have seen enough and realize that political power happens only through coercion and deception. Political structure and process has been a failing experiment for aeons. It’s not to late to join the afterparty of Reality and begin to see what the promises of infinity hold for everyone—including you and me. (See: Big Brother, Golden Rule, Contract, Kingdom of Heaven, Political Power, Authoritarianism, Iron Rule, The Representative System, Politics, VoteScam, Creativity, ChoicePoint, Republican, Tyrannolaw, Voting, Campaign Elections, VOTE, Electionomics, VOTERS, Freedom, Plutocracy & Electoral College)

The Electorant – the willfully ignorant electorate—the suckers (voters and “taxpayers”) who delegate and abdicate their power to elected and appointed officials (employees) and the system through which voters’ will is subverted through statutes, laws and policies not approved or even known in the election process. The ‘electorant’ are always ranting and raving about their sordid and assorted conditions when they are responsible for them by being ignorant of the nature of delegated power and its effect, i.e., arbitrary power wielded with impunity and State-sanctioned immunity. The electorant have no recourse but to fuss and talk about change—utterly clueless. All power of the State resides in those who hold the purse strings. Control of the “money” is in the hands of those who further use it to corrupt others in order for one to retain power (dynastic banking cartel families) and the other to remain in power (politician). It is a symbiotic racket and one that continues unabated. (See: Voters, GEO-Dollars, “Monetized Debt,” Federal Reserve System, Willful Ignorance, Political Money, Gangbanking, Elections, MONEY, S&M Banking, Taxpayers, Second Tax, Dumbing-Down, Colonized Mind & Citizens of the United States)

US House Committee Weighs Seating Cherokee Nation Delegate

From [HERE] The US House of Representatives’ Rules Committee Wednesday held a hearing exploring the possibility of seating a nonvoting delegate from the Cherokee Nation. The hearing is an essential first step towards fulfilling a provision from an old treaty, known as the Treaty of New Echota, that led to the Cherokee Nation’s forced removal from their ancestral lands.

Article 7 of the Treaty of New Echota grants the nation a delegate in the US House of Representatives as a necessary condition of the treaty. The treaty eventually led to the forced removal of the Cherokee Nation from its land east of the Mississippi and the deaths of many Cherokee Natives on the Trail of Tears.

In 2019, the Cherokee Nation stated its intention to send a delegate to congress. Kimberly Teehee was unanimously selected as the nation’s delegate after nomination by Hoskin. This hearing served as an opportunity for the House committee to discuss and explore the potential legal and political implications of seating the selected delegate. The witnesses testifying before the committee were the Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation Chuck Hoskin Jr., Native American Law Professor Lindsay Roberts, and legislative attorney from the Congressional Research Service Mainon Schwartz.

Hoskin’s testimony described the Treaty of New Echota’s delegate provision as a “mandatory duty” that the US must comply with. Hoskin also explained the legislative and political history of the treaty and encouraged the committee to seat the nation’s delegate. Hoskin emphasized the treaty’s legitimacy, despite the centuries that have passed, citing various US Supreme Court decisions reaffirming treaties and the rights they granted to native communities.

Roberts, in his testimony, offered the committee an overview of Native American and treaty law. Roberts spoke of current interpretations of treaties by federal courts, as well as the historical power imbalances in the creation of treaties with native nations. Schwartz further elaborated on the historical context of the treaty and its creation, as well as the current standing and implications of Article 7’s delegate provision.

Judge Orders Liar Fauci, Other Top Authorities to Testify Under Oath in Case Brought by 2 State Attorney Generals

From [MERCOLA] In the summer of 2022, a lawsuit was filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana against the federal government, including Dr. Anthony Fauci

• The lawsuit alleges that the U.S. government colluded with Big Tech giants Twitter, Meta (Facebook), YouTube, Instagram and LinkedIn to censor certain viewpoints by labeling them “misinformation” or “disinformation”

• In September 2022, a federal judge ordered Fauci and other officials to turn over emails with five social media firms

• Now, a federal court has taken it a step further, ruling that Fauci and other officials must testify under oath at depositions about whether they colluded with Big Tech to censor certain users

• The suit gives multiple examples of Fauci’s roles in the suppression of free speech, including that related to the lab leak theory of COVID-19’s origin, COVID-19 shots and the efficiency of masks and COVID-19 lockdowns

Restriction of free speech excelled during the COVID-19 pandemic, when efforts to shut down public discussions and information that countered the official narrative were in full force. In the summer of 2022, a lawsuit was filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana against the federal government, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).1

The lawsuit alleges that the U.S. government colluded with Big Tech giants Twitter, Meta (Facebook), YouTube, Instagram and LinkedIn to censor certain viewpoints by labeling them “misinformation” or “disinformation.” In September 2022, a federal judge ordered Fauci and other officials to turn over emails with five social media firms.2

Fauci initially refused, stating that the communications were protected by executive privilege. However, the judge ordered that the documents be turned over within 21 days nonetheless. Fauci was also ordered to answer questions posed by the plaintiffs in full. Mary Holland, president and general counsel of Children’s Health Defense, explained:3

“Up until now, Dr. Fauci has operated under this cloak of ‘untouchableness,’ thinking he has been above the law. He likely didn’t expect his emails to be made public. We can only imagine what this tranche of emails will likely reveal about Dr. Fauci’s bare-knuckled censorship — it won’t be pretty.”

Now, a federal court has taken it a step further, ruling that Fauci and other officials must testify under oath at depositions about whether they colluded with Big Tech to censor certain users.4

US Government Accused of Suppressing Free Speech

The original lawsuit was filed in May 2022 by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry.5 A joint statement regarding witness depositions reads:6

“Plaintiffs allege Defendants have colluded with and/or coerced social media companies to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social media platforms by labeling the content “dis-information,” “mis-information,” and “mal-information.”

Plaintiffs allege the suppression of disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and contents constitutes government action and violates Plaintiffs’ freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

What Was the Government Trying to Hide?

Several examples are given of suppression of free speech. Among them:7

• The Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the 2020 presidential election —Evidence found on Hunter’s laptop suggests he helped secure “millions in funding” for Metabiota, a U.S. contractor in Ukraine “specializing in deadly pathogen research,” which is what the Russian government had claimed during a press conference March 24, 2022.8

  In addition, one of Metabiota’s investors is Rosemont Seneca,9 an investment fund co-managed by Hunter Biden.10

  Metabiota is also a core partner in the USAID PREDICT program, which funded laboratory equipment for the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China through grants to the EcoHealth Alliance, and Shi Zhengli, a top coronavirus researcher at the WIV, also worked with PREDICT.11 The media, however, largely dismissed the story.12

  Daniel Schmidt, a freshman at the University of Chicago and writer for the university’s student-run newspaper The Chicago Thinker, even confronted Anne Applebaum, a staff writer for The Atlantic, about the media dismissal, stating:13

  “In 2020 you wrote, ‘Those who live outside the Fox News bubble do not, of course, need to learn any of the stuff about Hunter Biden,’ referring to his laptop, of course. A poll later found that if voters knew about the contents of the laptop, 16% of Joe Biden voters would have acted differently.

  Now, of course, we know ... that The New York Times confirmed that the content is real. Do you think the media acted inappropriately when they instantly dismissed Hunter Biden’s laptop as Russian disinformation and what can be learned from that in ensuring that what we label as disinformation is truly disinformation and not reality?”

• Speech about the lab leak theory of COVID-19’s origin — The plaintiffs allege that Fauci censored “speech backed by great scientific credibility and with enormous potential nationwide impact.”14 This includes information that COVID-19 was the result of a lab leak in Wuhan, China.

  One of the major pieces of propaganda is "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,"15 a paper published in Nature Medicine in March 2020 that became the preeminent "proof" that SARS-CoV-2 had a natural origin and couldn't possibly have come from a lab. It was later revealed that Fauci, Wellcome Trust head Jeremy Farrar and Dr. Francis Collins, NIH director, had a hand in the paper.16 As Children’s Health Defense reported:17

  “If the lab leak theory were true, in turn, it would mean that Fauci could be potentially implicated in funding the research on viruses that caused the COVID-19 pandemic that killed millions of people worldwide, the plaintiffs argued. This is because he funded risky “gain-of-function” research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through intermediaries such as EcoHealth Alliance.

  In late January 2020 and early February 2020, Fauci was also in touch with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in oral communications about the government’s COVID-19 response. Facebook then allegedly went on [to] censor the lab leak theory, according to the plaintiffs.”

• Speech about the efficiency of masks and COVID-19 lockdowns — Two plaintiffs in the case, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration, which scientifically critiqued the effects of prolonged lockdowns in response to COVID-19.

  Collins sent an email to Fauci stating, “There needs to be a quick and devastating published take-down of its premises.” In response, Fauci began to publicly criticize the Declaration, calling it “total nonsense” and “ridiculous.”18

  The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), which is part of the lawsuit, representing Bhattacharya and Kulldorff, stated:19

  “Social media platforms, acting at the federal government’s behest, repeatedly censored NCLA’s clients for articulating views on those platforms in opposition to government-approved views on Covid-19 restrictions. This insidious censorship was the direct result of the federal government’s ongoing campaign to silence those who voice perspectives that deviate from those of the Biden Administration.

  Government officials’ public threats to punish social media companies that did not do their bidding demonstrate this linkage, as do emails from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to social media companies that only recently were made public.”

Fauci Ordered to Testify Under Oath

The request for depositions was filed October 10, 2022. “After finding documentation of a collusive relationship between the Biden administration and social media companies to censor free speech, we immediately filed a motion to get these officials under oath,” Schmitt said in a news release.

“It is high time we shine a light on this censorship enterprise and force these officials to come clean to the American people, and this ruling will allow us to do just that. We’ll keep pressing for the truth.”20 In addition to Fauci, other officials ordered to testify include:21

• Former White House press secretary Jen Psaki

• Director of White House Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty

• Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy

• CISA director Jen Easterly

• FBI Supervisory special agent Elvis Chan

The depositions will cover many examples of a collusive relationship uncovered by the email exchanges. Another example includes former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson, who was also a victim of the censorship hysteria; his Twitter account was suspended when he posted this scientifically accurate information about COVID-19 shots:22

“It doesn’t stop infection. Or transmission. Don’t think of it as a vaccine. Think of it — at best — as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS. And we want to mandate it? Insanity.”

Berenson filed a lawsuit against Twitter for labeling the tweet as misleading and canceling his account. The case has since been resolved, with Twitter acknowledging that the tweets should not have led to a suspension. When his account was reinstated, Berenson tweeted the exact same message, which this time escaped Twitter’s “misinformation” flag.

However, it’s now been revealed that Fauci was involved in Berenson’s suspension. According to the plaintiffs’ joint statement, “Dr. Fauci publicly described Berenson’s opinions on vaccines as ‘horrifying.’ President Biden followed Dr. Fauci’s steps and made a statement that ‘They’re killing people’ by not censoring vaccine ‘misinformation,’ to which Twitter subsequently permanently suspended Berenson from its platform.”23

Will the Truth Finally Be Heard?

The request for depositions gave three reasons why Fauci, specifically, should be questioned under oath:24

1. He refused to verify under oath his own interrogatory responses; instead, NIAID responses were verified by Dr Jill Harper, who was not named in the complaint. Fauci has made no statements under oath regarding his communications with social media platforms.

2. Even if Fauci can prove he didn’t communicate with social media platforms, “there are compelling reasons that suggest Dr. Fauci has acted through intermediaries, and acted on behalf of others, in procuring the social-media censorship of credible scientific opinions.”

3. Fauci’s credibility on matters related to COVID-19 “misinformation” has been in question since 2020. “Plaintiffs state that Dr. Fauci has made public statements on the efficacy of masks, the percentage of the population needed for herd immunity, NIAID’s funding of ‘gain-of-function’ virus research in Wuhan, the lab-leak theory, and more.

   Plaintiffs urge that his comments on these important issues are relevant to the matter at hand and are further reasons why Dr. Fauci should be deposed.”

August 22, 2022, Fauci announced he will resign from his roles as director of the NIAID — a position he’s held for 38 years — and chief medical adviser to the White House, come December.25 It’s interesting timing.

It appears Fauci is making sure to get out before new Republican Congressional members take their seats and is probably banking on being able to plead the Fifth Amendment as a private citizen, should Republicans decide to investigate his role in the pandemic. This deposition may change that, as well as bring much-needed protection to Americans’ right to free speech. As noted by NCLA:26

“Government-induced censorship is achieved through a wide variety of mechanisms, ranging from complete bans, temporary bans, “shadow bans” (where often neither the user nor his audience is notified of the suppression of speech), deboosting, de-platforming, de-monetizing, restricting access to content, requiring users to take down content, and imposing warning labels that require click-through to access content, among others.

These methods also include temporary and permanent suspensions of disfavored speakers.

This sort of censorship, which strikes at the heart of what the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect — free speech, especially political speech — constitutes unlawful government action. The federal government is deciding whose voices and ideas may be heard, and whose voices and ideas must be silenced.

Moreover, this state action deprives Americans of their right to hear the views of those who are being silenced, a First Amendment corollary of the right to free speech. The government’s policy of coercing social-media companies to censor Plaintiffs’ viewpoints should be declared unlawful and halted immediately.”

Baseless COVID Shut Down Orders that Destroyed Businesses and Jobs Didn't Destroy Rights? Fed Judge says Sup Ct Should Consider Whether the Right to Earn a Living is a Fundamental Constitutional Right

From [HERE] A federal appeals judge suggested in a concurrence this week that the U.S. Supreme Court should consider whether the right to earn a living is a fundamental, unenumerated constitutional right.

Judge James Ho of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans made his argument in a Nov. 8 COVID-19 shutdown case, report Reuters, Law360, Above the Law and the Volokh Conspiracy.

Ho joined the majority opinion, which “reluctantly” concluded that the city of Columbus, Mississippi, did not violate the constitutional rights of the Golden Glow Tanning Salon when it shut down businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Law360.

Ho’s concurrence, however, follows “a growing body of cases in which judges have argued that government restrictions on economic activity—often in business licensing cases—are given too much deference from the courts,” Law360 reports.

Ho began his concurrence this way: “The Supreme Court has recognized a number of fundamental rights that do not appear in the text of the Constitution. But the right to earn a living is not one of them—despite its deep roots in our nation’s history and tradition. Governing precedent thus requires us to rule against the countless small businesses, like plaintiff here, crippled by shutdown mandates imposed by public officials in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Cases like this nevertheless raise the question: If we’re going to recognize various unenumerated rights as fundamental, why not the right to earn a living?”

Ho said the Supreme Court could consider the right to earn a living by granting cert in Tiwari v. Friedlander. In that case, the 6th Circuit at Cincinnati upheld a requirement for home health care companies to obtain a certificate of need before providing services in the Louisville, Kentucky, area.

The 5th Circuit case is Golden Glow Tanning Salon Inc. v. City of Columbus, Mississippi.

Ho is an appointee of former President Donald Trump. He was previously in the news for pledging not to hire future Yale Law School grads as clerks because of what he sees as the school’s cancel culture.

Military Whistleblowers say Cancer, Miscarriages and Heart Disease All Up 300% following COVID Injection Mandates

From [HERE] Three doctors in the armed forces have decided to blow the lid on the United States military’s open deception concerning the negative outcome of Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccination” on American troops.

According to the three whistleblowers, medical billing code data captured by the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED), which is run by the Department of Defense (DoD), shows that rates of miscarriage, myocarditis, cancer, Bell’s palsy, female infertility, and many other health conditions are up big time.

Cancer rates are particularly concerning, they say, as the normal average number of new cases per year is about 38,700, based on the time period from 2016-2020. In 2021 after Operation Warp Speed was launched, however, the number of new cancer cases that year rose to 114,645.

The Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch (AFHSB) runs the DMED, which it describes as a “web-based tool to remotely query de-identified active component personnel and medical event data contained within the Defense Medical Surveillance System (DMSS).”

“The database contains every International Classification of Diseases (ICD) medical billing code for all medical diagnoses submitted by the military for medical insurance billing,” reports explain. (Related: Remember at the launch of Operation Warp Speed when Dr. Sara Beltrán Ponce, MD, suffered a horrific miscarriage right after getting jabbed for the Chinese Flu?)

Neurological issues up 1,000% in military following Operation Warp Speed

The three military whistleblowers in question are Samuel Sigoloff, Peter Chambers, and Theresa Long. Attorney Thomas Renz issued sworn statements from these three to the courts as part of a major lawsuit. [MORE]

10-Year-Old Boy Died of Cardiac Arrest 7 Days After Moderna Shot, VAERS Data Show. The Dependent Media Continues to Lie and Conceal Reality of Dangerous COVID Injections

From [HERE] The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,458,322 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and Nov. 4, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.

The data included a total of 31,961 reports of deaths and 265,274 serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period.

There were a total of 7,783 reports of adverse events following the new COVID-19 bivalent booster as of Nov. 4, 2022, with 45% attributed to Moderna’s booster and 55% attributed to Pfizer/BioNTech’s booster. The data included a total of 61 deaths and 434 serious injuries.

As of Nov. 10, 31.4 million people have received the updated bivalent booster dose.

Of the 31,961 reported deaths, 20,381 cases are attributed to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, 8,696 cases to Moderna, 2,773 cases to Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and no cases yet reported for Novavax.

Excluding “foreign reports” to VAERS, 894,850 adverse events, including 15,096 deaths and 93,362 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020, and Nov. 4, 2022.

Foreign reports are reports foreign subsidiaries send to U.S. vaccine manufacturers. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.

Of the 15,096 deaths reported as of Nov. 4, 7% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination and 15% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination.

In the U.S., 640 million COVID-19 vaccine doses had been administered as of Nov. 2, including 381 million doses of Pfizer, 241 million doses of Moderna and 19 million doses of J&J.

The Apartheid Regime's Sinister Biological and Chemical Warfare Program

“There is No Climate Emergency:” Hundreds More Sign the World Climate Declaration, Including 20 University Professors

From [HERE] Scientists continue to flock to sign the World Climate Declaration that states there is no climate emergency. Over 200 people have signed the World Climate Declaration (WCD) over the last few weeks, including 20 university professors. A number of the professors and other academics signing the declaration are experts in pure science fields such as chemistry and physics. Over 300 scientists and professionals have signed the WCD since August 18th, when the Daily Sceptic highlighted the project and interest soared across social media. The total signatories, led by the Norwegian physics Nobel Prize winner Professor Ivar Giaever, now number over 1,400.

It would not be an exaggeration to note that the recent publicity given to the WCD has struck terror into the ranks of the established and largely pseudoscientific climate community, whose gravy train of ‘settled’ science is fuelled by almost unlimited amounts of money and provides the political narrative for the command-and-control Net Zero agenda. Fact checks and social media personal attacks have been launched, but the scale of scientific scepticism is becoming increasingly difficult to deny. Nearly 300 professors alone have now signed the declaration.

The WCD states that climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. It continues: “We should free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate models. In future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science.” Climate models are said to have many shortcomings, “and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools”. They are said to exaggerate or “blow up” the effect of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and “ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial”. There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying natural disasters and there is no climate emergency. Therefore, notes the WCD, there is no cause for panic and alarm. [MORE]

Vanilla’s Vice: Can You Name Ten Corporate Criminals?

From [HERE] Iowa Law Professor Mihailis Diamantis and Will Thomas of the Michigan Ross Business School recently asked readers:

Can you name ten corporate criminals? 

Bernie Madoff, Martha Stewart and Jeff Skilling don’t count – they are individuals, not businesses. 

How about just five? Three? 

“It’s surprising the task should be so difficult. Corporate crime inflicts upwards of 20 times more economic damage each year than all street crime,” they write. “Brand-name corporations find themselves on the wrong side of the law for everything from accounting fraud to homicide to narcotics dealing. Yet many people, including most law students and even some law professors, don’t even know that corporate criminal law exists.”

In a forthcoming paper titled Why Corporate Prosecutors Need Better Marketing Chops, Diamantis and Thomas argue that widespread ignorance about corporate crime and corporate criminals reflects a systemic problem for business law, as well as a missed opportunity.

“Corporate criminal enforcement needs a marketing makeover,” they write. “When prosecutors and agencies ignore basic marketing principles, they undermine the deterrent impact of the public, expressive act inherent in corporate criminal enforcement. These failures of communication undermine the most basic moral and preventive aspirations of corporate criminal law.”

“This is an unforced error that some creative thinking and attention to marketing basics could begin to remedy right now, without even requiring much additional expense.”

What should the government do?

“We think that by increasing the resources spent on marketing, the government can get significantly more bang for the buck than they are getting right now,” Thomas told Corporate Crime Reporter in an interview last month. “We’ve actually seen this sort of trend when it comes to governance and compliance.” 

“Corporate criminal law has in principle been concerned with issues like internal governance for decades, but it’s really only been in the past let’s say 12 years or so that the Justice Department itself has started investing resources into better understanding and better advising about compliance.” 

“We haven’t seen the same investment coming from the government when it comes to the marketing side of its own practice. Which means all of this time and effort spent on getting better at the work isn’t being matched by an ability to communicate those successes when they come to the public.”

“The public is harmed when it’s difficult to find out about these major organizations involved in serious instances of crime, fraud or corruption, both across the country but in specific jurisdictions.”  [MORE]

6th Circuit Court of Appeals finds Deputies who Searched a Nervous Man for 'Shaking' and Refusing to Share His Travel Plans Not Immune from Lawsuit

From [HERE] It is clearly established that a driver's nervousness and reluctance to describe his travel plans does not give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary for police to prolong a traffic stop beyond the time it takes to issue a warning or write a traffic ticket, says the Sixth Circuit(link is external)(unpublished). So this gentleman who was pulled over for tinted windows and declined to share that his shaking was due to muscular dystrophy can indeed sue a pair of Hamilton County, Tenn. officers. A jury might think they prolonged the stop to allow for a drug dog sniff (and, after a false alert, search of his car). Suspects geenrally have no duty to cooperate. No qualified immunity.

The case is Klaver v. Hamilton Cnty., Tenn.(link is external), No. 22-05084 (6th Cir.  Nov. 3, 2022).