@DeeLo1776 @RealCandaceO@grok Are Bill Gates’ comments terrifying or are you also in favor of running large scale experiments on humans just to see what happens?
@SenRandPaul@grok Please read all of your responses to all of the comments related to this post and summarize the points you have made into one response without contradicting yourself.
This one goes out to you, @RobertKennedyJr.
You never once faltered in your mission. But more exemplary still, you treated those who lied about you and betrayed you with ever-ready grace. Even when the world wasn’t watching. Even when the people who attacked you in public were the ones you loved the most.
You fought for America in the face of fire and falsehoods. Time and again, you endured the vitriol and mud without ever flinging it back from whence it came. You defended our nation’s children without thought of defending yourself.
That rare combination — fierce determination and boundless forgiveness — reminds us that certainty of purpose need not mean smallness of character.
You’ve proven anew the power of grace and grit and service. Of cultivating brotherly and sisterly love, of respectful conversation. Of curiosity and equanimity. Of prayer and obedience to God. Of seeking the truth. Of speaking the truth. And of making space, still, for mischief and humble good humor.
You set out to end our chronic disease epidemic. Along the way, you inadvertently helped heal our national soul.
Congratulations, Bobby. You did it. And more than that, you did it right.
Elon Musk is right.
The Pentagon, with a budget of $886 billion, just failed its 7th audit in a row. It’s lost track of billions.
Last year, only 13 senators voted against the Military Industrial Complex and a defense budget full of waste and fraud.
That must change.
@EWErickson I just heard your show today, rehashing all of the talking points against RFK Jr., then your show broke for a SKYRIZI commercial. Way to abandon your credibility to shill for big pharma.
The 28-second clip demonstrates how effectively VP Harris can communicate her beliefs when she speaks without obfuscation. Thankfully, it also exposes her belief that free speech is a dangerous privilege that must be restricted.
This post ends with a sincere question for Harris supporters.
First, please watch (or re-watch) this clip of Kamala Harris discussing regulation of speech on X.
The Facebook "rules" Harris describes relate to compliance with government censorship, as outlined by Zuck in his recent letter to Congress. Meta was pressured by the White House to block thousands of political posts, including jokes and satire. Including true but inconvenient facts. Including a laptop containing evidence that a presidential candidate may have had business dealings with hostile governments.
Incidentally, if the 2020 Biden campaign had not been concerned that the information on his son's computer could cost them the election, Blinken wouldn't have called Deputy CIA Director Mike Morell to ask for a letter discrediting the laptop as Russian disinformation. Morell himself testified to Congress that his intention in providing the letter was to help Biden win.
Of course, it's now been established in court that the laptop was authentic and the Russians had nothing to do with it.
Zuckerberg points to this deception from the intelligence community -- and the accompanying demand to censor all posts and private DMs about the laptop -- as improper. And while Zuck doesn't go so far as to call this "election interference," it's clear that Blinken and Morell both felt the lie and the censorship were necessary to salvage Biden's chances, or they wouldn't have made the considerable (and illegal) effort.
I mention the laptop not to litigate whether its contents would have changed your vote, but because you should have had the right to make that decision for yourself. Back in 2020. Before the election in question.
Such manipulation is the predictable result of the "rules" Harris insists X follow in this clip.
History and common sense dictate that when we give an intelligence agency the right to censor speech, they wield it to protect their favored leader, their funding, their wars, their control.
Questioning the government has long impacted the trust scores of Chinese citizens, restricting the radius from home they can travel, limiting the jobs they can take, and increasing the interest rates they must pay on their loans.
AI-driven facial recognition dings a Chinese citizen for even spending time with someone whose score is too low, weaponizing social isolation to force compliance with the government narrative.
While that may seem like a far-removed Orwellian nightmare to most Americans, we've already seen shades of it here at home. Two years ago, PayPal updated its terms to deduct $2,500 from users' bank accounts if PayPal decided the user was spreading misinformation. The word "misinformation" was removed following criticism from Elon Musk and others, but the clause "misleading information" still remains.
This summer, the former Director of NSA joined the Board of OpenAI. And over the last year, the US intelligence community launched its HIATUS program to log the names and ID numbers of US citizens posting anonymously on social media, relying on AI to analyze their underlying sentence structure like a unique, stylistic fingerprint.
The T-BERT program takes censorship to the realm of Minority Report, predicting in advance which social media users are likely to become untrustworthy, facilitating "pre-censorship" programs to silence those who might challenge the narrative before they even do so. Its lead scientist noted in her initial findings that accounts using words like "government" and "media" were more likely to post misinformation in the future than accounts that used words like "birthday" and "weather."
Can't make this stuff up.
And it's not just your digital speech that these programs challenge. No, they also threaten your real-world bank account and bodily liberty.
In Canada, those expressing support for peaceful protests against Covid mandates had their bank accounts frozen, resulting in at least one imprisonment due to inability to pay alimony.
Last month in France, the CEO of secure messaging app Signal was pulled off an aircraft and arrested after refusing to give governments blanket access to all its users' private messages.
In Britain, several UK citizens were recently jailed for ten months to two years over Facebook posts criticizing tax expenditures on undocumented migrants. In at least one case the offending post was private, invisible to anyone but friends.
And in Brazil, X has been banned altogether, simply because it refused to comply with political censorship directives. Anyone who accesses the site from Brazil now faces crippling financial fines.
It was this last ban that prompted the question Kamala Harris answers in this video.
So, having sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, was Kamala's answer that she would die for any American's right to free expression?
I'm afraid not.
Her answer was that we who post on X are "directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation. And that has to stop."
This should send a chill down every American spine.
Whose "oversight and regulation" do you want policing your daily speech?
Sure, you may trust Kamala Harris, but what about whomever comes next? Are you certain you want to give every future president the power to silence you? Even if it is a leader you loathe? A leader who loathes you?
I cannot make it make sense.
And so here is my question.
For those still planning to choose Kamala Harris -- could you describe what Harris offers that you value above your right to speak what you believe?
For those who vote blue no matter who, could you explain how supporting the Democrats will improve your life more than losing the right to express yourself will diminish it?
For those planning to stay home out of disappointment with the available options, could you share why you see abstention as worth losing your first amendment protections?
And for my MAHA 🤝 MAGA community, could you describe why you are voting in favor of free speech when you know that many will use it to post views you find abhorrent?
We'll see whether this post is, itself, de-amplified. But if you're reading this, please take a moment to respond.
I promise to consider and reply with utmost respect.
There is no more important conversation we Americans must have before we cast our vote.
There's been an inversion now where the Republican Party has become the party of the common man, of working people, of the middle class, and the Democratic Party has become the party of Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex, Big Pharma, BigAg, Big Tech, the Big Banking Systems and all of what @realDonaldTrump calls the Deep State. @TuckerCarlson@VivekGRamaswamy