EXCLUSIVE: Jan. 6 Committee Is Using Innocent Americans’ Assertion Of Their Constitutional Rights As Proof Of Guilt

EXCLUSIVE: Jan. 6 Committee Is Using Innocent Americans’ Assertion Of Their Constitutional Rights As Proof Of Guilt

The Jan. 6 Committee is abusing its power by asking inappropriate questions about their fellow Americans’ beliefs and associates, and publicly portraying witnesses who exercise their Fifth Amendment rights as guilty — all to put on a show trial.

Later on Tuesday, the Jan. 6 Committee will hold yet another public hearing, this one purportedly to focus “on the role of extremists” in the attack on the Capitol. While the precise script for the afternoon’s proceedings remains unknown, last week Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin previewed the committee’s plans, telling The New York Times that when public hearings resumed in July, “he intends to lead a presentation that will focus on the roles far-right groups like the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers and 1st Amendment Praetorian played in the Capitol attack.” According to the Times, “Mr. Raskin has also promised to explore the connections between those groups and the people in Mr. Trump’s orbit.”

Recycling the Fifth Amendment Tactic

An attorney for 1st Amendment Praetorian, or 1AP, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting free speech, spoke exclusively with The Federalist about the committee’s questioning of 1AP, the group’s founder, and another member of the nonprofit, all of whom she represents. From the framing of the questions posed to her clients, Leslie McAdoo Gordon was left with the firm impression that the Jan. 6 Committee merely wanted video capturing her clients declining to answer the questions for the purpose of impugning their character during the televised hearings.

“The committee knew before the depositions that my clients would be asserting their First and Fifth Amendment rights, and also would not answer any questions because the depositions were being held in violation of the rules established by the House,” McAdoo Gordon told The Federalist. So, shortly after the hearing began and the 1AP witnesses made clear they would not answer any questions, the staffers moved to general topic areas and would ask a few prepared questions, then the committee representative would note that he had more questions on the topic and inquire whether if he asked those questions, the witnesses intended to assert the same objections.

“My clients would respond ‘yes’ to that question, so then the committee would move forward with the next topic,” McAdoo Gordon said. “But after covering various topics, the committee staffer at the end volleyed a litany of individual questions to my clients, forcing them to respond to each question with ‘Rules, First, and Fifth,’ the shorthand we had agreed to with the committee to convey their objections to questions posed.”

Given that the committee had broadcast video of Michael Flynn asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in an earlier hearing, McAdoo Gordon said she wouldn’t be surprised if Tuesday’s hearings include clips of her clients refusing to answer the committee’s questions.

In fact, she said as much to the committee in a letter last week. After calling the lawmakers out for implying to the public that Flynn was guilty of some crime because he asserted his Fifth Amendment rights, McAdoo Gordon wrote that implying guilt based on a witness asserting his rights, “is a McCarthy-esque tactic that offends the Constitution and is unworthy of the United States Congress.” The attorney added that she is “forced to anticipate that the Committee will use the same totalitarian tactic to improperly smear 1AP.”

The irony is that McAdoo Gordon was working with the committee to arrange for her clients to testify voluntarily, within the bounds of the First Amendment, until the committee concocted what she has called a “cockamamie” criminal conspiracy theory. The committee argued in litigation with former Trump attorney John Eastman “that President Trump, Dr. Eastman, and others conspired to defraud the United States by disrupting the electoral count,” supposedly in violation of Section 371 of the federal criminal code, which makes it a crime to “conspire to defraud” the United States. The committee’s pushing of what she called a “preposterous” legal theory left McAdoo Gordon “with no option but to recommend that my clients assert their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.”

McAdoo Gordon told The Federalist that during her clients’ depositions, the committee asked a series of questions that she likely would have allowed her clients to answer if the meeting had been on a voluntary basis. Putting aside the question of whether the committee was properly constituted, the 1AP’s attorney noted Congress had a legitimate interest in investigating the riots and violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

“What 1AP did, or more accurately put, didn’t do, on Jan. 6 was relevant to the committee’s investigation into the riot and the violence at the Capitol, and I was working to arrange for my clients to voluntarily provide the committee with that information,” McAdoo Gordon said. Likewise, the committee had questions about a couple tweets my clients sent on the sixth, and again, such questions were relevant to the Jan. 6 investigation. “

“But once the committee advanced the absurd Section 371 criminal conspiracy theory, I could no longer recommend my clients speak with the committee,” the attorney explained. McAdoo Gordon did respond to the committee on behalf of her clients, however, after Raskin “falsely described 1AP as a ‘far right’ group with a ‘role’ in the ‘Capitol attack’” in his interview with the Times. “All of those points are false and defamatory,” she told the committee. “1AP is a mainstream, non-partisan group with no role whatsoever in the attack on the Capitol.”

Violating the First Amendment

It isn’t just the Fifth Amendment the committee has been shredding, however. “Even if my clients did not assert the Fifth Amendment, I would have still objected to several questions on First Amendment grounds,” McAdoo Gordon added. While some questions related to Jan. 6 were relevant, the majority of the questions posed to 1AP representatives were none of Congress’s business, McAdoo Gordon stressed. And even the process reveals the warped authoritarianism of the committee, the attorney added.

“At the beginning of the depositions, the congressional staff sought confirmation that we were not recording the proceedings in any way, while they proceeded to video record the questioning,” McAdoo Gordon said. She then noted that while witnesses called before a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., can obtain a transcript of their testimony, the Jan. 6 Committee refuses to allow those they target to obtain transcripts of their subpoenaed testimony.

The committee’s hiding of the transcripts serves to cover their lies and to control the narrative of the show trial, but it also allows the Jan. 6 Committee to hide the wildly inappropriate questions it posed to the witnesses.

“Do you believe in QAnon?” “Do you believe that Joe Biden is the legitimately elected president of the United States?” “What’s your understanding of what happened on 1/6?”

“A Committee of the United States Congress actually asked my clients those questions,” McAdoo Gordon told The Federalist in an exclusive weekend interview.

“Before the deposition, I assured my clients that their political and personal beliefs would not be probed,” the D.C. attorney explained. “While I knew from the subpoenas the Jan. 6 Committee intended to seek constitutionally protected information concerning other 1AP members, my jaw just kept dropping further when they started to question my clients on what they thought and believed.”

The committee also asked Robert Lewis, who is a retired United States Army Green Beret and recipient of the Bronze Star and a Purple Heart, and Philip Luelsdorff, a former U.S. Army Ranger, to describe 1AP activities. For whom and for what purpose did they provide volunteer services? Did they provide security? Surveillance? Assistance with legal activities? What training did they provide? And how were they able to afford to provide the training and volunteer services? Where did the money come from? Who made donations? What bank accounts were used? Did the organization accept cryptocurrency?

Again, none of those questions concerned the events of Jan. 6. Rather, the committee focused on events long before the Jan. 6 events at the Capitol. For instance, it asked whether 1AP provided security for polling places. Other questions concerned 1AP’s security work at a Nov. 14 rally and a Dec. 12 rally.

In essence, the committee is seeking information about 1AP’s members, financial status, donors, and activities. None of that is relevant to the Jan. 6 riots, and all of it is off-limits to the government, the lawyer said. “The Committee had no business asking those questions, so my clients weren’t about to answer them in violation of their First Amendment rights.”

“The Committee had cited as ‘evidence’ against my clients that they obtained a permit for a demonstration the day before the riot. How is obtaining a permit to hold a peaceful protest evidence of a role in a riot the next day? It isn’t,” McAdoo Gordon said. The committee also sought to quiz Lewis and Luelsdorff on their relationship with the Trump family, the White House, the campaign, and numerous specific individuals such as Sidney Powell and Michael Flynn. The staff further asked whether they had been in contact with any of the defense attorneys representing any of the Jan. 6 defendants.

“The government should not be asking a civic organization, which is what 1AP is, about its relationships, in general, with other people, much less about the organization’s donors or lawyers with whom they spoke,” McAdoo Gordon stressed.

Assuming Guilt with Dishonest Framing

Beyond asking inappropriate questions that implicated 1AP’s First Amendment rights, the committee framed several questions in the “do you still beat your wife” format. Before the election, did they provide security “in order to overturn the election”? “Have you engaged in any activities to overturn the certified election results?” “Have you engaged in any activities to reinstall Donald Trump as president of the United States since Jan. 20, 2021?” These questions all presuppose that the “election results” were sought to be “overturned,” as opposed to challenged.

But of course, the Jan. 6 Committee’s focus on the few unfounded claims of election fraud, as opposed to the numerous violations of state election law and evidence of illegal voting — issues Trump and his legal team pursued — aids in the narrative that the protesters wanted to “install” Trump or overturn the election, as opposed to protest election irregularities. And by using a guilt-by-association strategy, the committee paints not just 1AP and its volunteers as complicit in the violence at the Capitol, but every American who attended the rallies and peacefully protested the disastrous 2020 election.

“The committee might be using nicer language, but its questioning is Stalinist in nature nonetheless,” McAdoo Gordon said.

The 1AP lawyer is correct. But because the corrupt media is effectively serving as a state-run press for its preferred politicians, most of America will be oblivious to that fact when the hearings resume later today.


Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Source

Whatever Happened to ‘Don’t Be Evil’

Whatever Happened to ‘Don’t Be Evil’


What Happened to Don’t Be Evil?

By: Michael Senger

In the mid-18th century, a secretive political group began spreading dangerous conspiracy theories throughout Britain’s colonies. British subjects had long enjoyed the freedom of expression, but these radicals abused novel communication platforms to churn out seditious literature not often grounded in fact, even resorting to threats and violence that endangered those around them.

According to their wild theories, a series of modest taxes levied by Parliament actually represented an incremental process to strip away their rights. They had no evidence to back their claims. After they arranged one of the costliest acts of vandalism in the history of the Empire, Parliament very reasonably invoked a state of emergency to protect the public.

Yet, characteristically, rather than raising their objections through proper legal channels, these extremists co-signed a document penned by one of their most wily and manipulative agitators, falsely claiming to speak for all the colonists in declaring themselves above the law.

In a helpful rebuttal, Governor Thomas Hutchinson thoroughly debunked the document, outlining the many “false and frivolous” claims in this “list of imaginary grievances,” its signatories relying on spurious overtures to “what they called the natural rights of mankind” to evade substantive argument. Hutchinson noted the signers’ racism, “depriving more than a hundred thousand Africans of their rights to liberty,” discrediting their appeals to so-called “natural rights,” as well as “the absurdity of making the governed to be governors,” a laughable contradiction.

Moreover, the document was misleading. “The real design was to reconcile the people of America to that Independence.” The signers even referred to their sovereign as a “tyrant,” a profanity for which “indignant resentment must seize the breast of every loyal subject.” The Empire had always been about saving lives, after all—even if it occasionally fell a bit short.

••••

In this story, most readers now recognize the birth of the world’s oldest democracy and the modern constitutional republic. But perhaps those who presently govern the mega-platforms collectively referred to as “Big Tech,” on which most online discourse now takes place, take it as a warning of what can go wrong if citizens are permitted to freely express their beliefs.

As strangely low an ethical standard as it was, the days of “Don’t be evil” appear to have been left far behind. Big Tech platforms now routinely side with raw state and corporate power, showing a disregard bordering on outright disdain for the rights and welfare of the human beings whom their actions affect. The recent history of Big Tech is a history of repeated usurpations, all demonstrating as their direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over the people.

Big Tech platforms openly disavow any role in abiding by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, to which all American citizens owe a duty and to which any person who chooses to become an American citizen must swear an oath to uphold and defend. They censor centuries-old news organizations for publishing true, factual, and timely information.

Big Tech platforms routinely censor the legal speech of citizens, concealing the rationale behind their decisions and applying their terms of service selectively, if at all. They mislead the public as to the scale and scope of this censorship, systematically silencing the most articulate voices on one side of any given debate unbeknownst to the vast majority of the public.

Big Tech platforms openly collude with governments to suppress the speech of their own people, while overtly abusing the legal system and paying massive settlements to conceal the evidence of their collusion. They craft the false illusion of consensus on political issues of their own choosing, a power unprecedented in our democracy and historically held only by the most despotic regimes, promising in every instance to wield it for good, but falling short every time.

Big Tech platforms deploy artificial intelligence to censor and de-boost citizens and opposing viewpoints with increasingly inhuman detachment and efficiency. They retain as leading AI experts—on their boards of directors—personnel with deep and well-documented ties to the militaries of the world’s worst dictatorships.

Big Tech platforms routinely apply fact-check labels to true stories and information based on unrelated contextual issues, manipulating political narratives by deceiving the public into believing that the pertinent information is itself false. Meanwhile, they ignore large-scale bot and astroturf campaigns affecting political outcomes all over the world—despite harrowing accounts from whistleblowers—while misleading the public as to the frequency, scale, and purpose of these bot and astroturf campaigns.

Big Tech platforms censor the voices of the most well-qualified citizens under the Orwellian pretext of combatting “misinformation,” drowning out their views with those of disinformation agents and bots. Meanwhile, they anoint as “experts” those who hold no relevant qualifications in the designated field other than a groveling deference to the viewpoints of Big Tech, who then regularly publish falsehoods without retribution.

Big Tech platforms employ managers who accept bribes to censor political dissidents fighting against the world’s deadliest regimes, to whom they show obsequious deference. They bear a growing resemblance to organized crime syndicates, submitting false statements to the highest courts of law while hiding behind an unlimited legal budget and cutesy PR campaigns replete with amorphous birds and round, lower-case letters to escape legal scrutiny.

This is no far-off dystopia. As rapidly as they’ve transpired, these things are already happening, and this is the reality of the world that Big Tech has created today. Given their systematic suppression of dissent against lockdowns, which ultimately killed over 170,000 Americans and countless millions more around the world, it’s hard to think of any ostensibly-private enterprise since the British East India Company that’s been responsible for more widespread human suffering. Much of this behavior is surely being coerced by the federal government, just as the East India Company was largely doing the bidding of the British Government. But Big Tech might want to ask how well “just following orders” worked as a defense in 1945.

I conclude with the words of another individual who ultimately came to sign that radical 18th-century document, but other than whom no man ever fought harder for peace.

Look upon your Hands! They are stained with the Blood of your Relations! You and I were long Friends. You are now my Enemy—and I am Yours.”

••••

The above article (What Happened to Don’t Be Evil?) was published on the site BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE and is republished here with permission and attribution to the articles author Michael Senger and brownstone.org.

About the above articles Author: Michael P Senger is an attorney based in the United States. He has been researching the influence of the Chinese Communist Party on the world’s response to COVID-19 since March 2020, and previously authored China’s Global Lockdown Propaganda Campaign and The Masked Ball of Cowardice in Tablet Magazine. You can follow his work on Substack

The above article we originally published on Michael’s Substack

••••

Also by the Author:

How Shanghai’s Lockdown Serves The CCP

••••

Click the image below to visit this new site:

••••

••••

Stay tuned to …

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Share this…
Share on FacebookPin on PinterestTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Source

SCOTUS Sides with High School Football Coach Fired for Praying on the Field

SCOTUS Sides with High School Football Coach Fired for Praying on the Field

The Supreme Court on Monday sided 6-3 with a football coach who was fired for praying on the field after games, marking another win for religious liberty delivered by the conservative-leaning court.

The case surrounds high school football coach Joseph Kennedy and Bremerton School District in the state of Washington. Kennedy, a devout Christian who began working at Bremerton High School in 2008, was fired from his role as varsity assistant coach and as the junior varsity head coach after he refused to quit praying on the 50 yard line in full view of the public following games.

Kennedy asserted that the school district violated the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The district also used the First Amendment to justify its argument, claiming that Kennedy’s prayers in view of the public and students following a school-sanctioned event violate the Establishment Clause because his actions could be perceived as a district endorsement of religion.

Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the majority opinion, ruling that the Bremerton School District violated the Free Exercise Clause and the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment by firing coach Joseph Kennedy for praying after games. Gorsuch further ruled that the district failed to prove that Kennedy violated the Establishment Clause and overruled the “Lemon test,” a measure of government coercion of religion which some justices have previously called outdated and misused.

Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic—whether those expressions take place in a sanctuary or on a field, and whether they manifest through the spoken word or a bowed head. Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a brief, quiet, personal religious observance doubly protected by the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment,” Gorsuch wrote.

Joseph Kennedy

Christian high school football coach Joseph Kennedy was fired in 2015 for refusing to stop kneeling and praying on the field after games. (Screenshot)

“And the only meaningful justification the government offered for its reprisal rested on a mistaken view that it had a duty to ferret out and suppress religious observances even as it allows comparable secular speech. The Constitution neither mandates nor tolerates that kind of discrimination,” he continued. 

Gorsuch spoke against both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which sided against Kennedy, writing that the lower courts’ interpretation of the Establishment Clause would make all school employee speech “subject to government control.” 

“On this understanding, a school could fire a Muslim teacher for wearing a headscarf in the classroom or prohibit a Christian aide from praying quietly over her lunch in the cafeteria,” he wrote.  

Gorsuch also clarified that the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, and the Free Speech Clause have complementary purposes, “not warring ones where one Clause is always sure to prevail over the others.” 

“In this way, the District effectively created its own vise between the Establishment Clause on one side and the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses on the other, placed itself in the middle, and then chose its preferred way out of its self-imposed trap,” he continued. “To defend its approach, the District relied on Lemon and its progeny. In upholding the District’s actions, the Ninth Circuit followed the same course.”

Gorsuch proceeded to eviscerate Lemon, noting the the district’s claim that Kennedy “coerced” students to pray with him were unfounded. The justice explained that the Lemon test “invited chaos” into lower courts and “created a minefield for legislators.”

“This Court has since made plain, too, that the Establishment Clause does not include anything like a modified heckler’s veto, in which . . . religious activity can be proscribed based on ‘perceptions’ or ‘discomfort,’  he wrote. 

“In place of Lemon and the endorsement test, this Court has instructed that the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by ‘reference to historical practices and understandings,’” he continued. 

Both Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote concurring opinions; Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, dissented. Sotomayor argued that the majority decision is a “disservice” to the separation of church and state, and is “no victory for religious liberty.”

First Liberty Institute, which represented Coach Kennedy, disagreed with Sotomayor’s assessment, calling the decision a “tremendous victory” for Kennedy, “and religious liberty for all Americans.”

“Our Constitution protects the right of every American to engage in private religious expression, including praying in public, without fear of getting fired. We are grateful that the Supreme Court recognized what the Constitution and law have always said – Americans are free to live out their faith in public,” Kelly Shackelford, president, CEO, and chief counsel for First Liberty said

“This is another tremendous victory for the Constitution and rule of law,” agreed former Ambassador Ken Blackwell, senior adviser at both the Family Research Council and the America First Policy Institute. “This highlights yet again the incredible contribution that President Trump made to our nation’s highest court, which in the same week it upheld the Second Amendment and returned abortion to the states has now also upheld the original public meaning of both free speech and religious liberty in the First Amendment.”

Paul Clement, former U.S. Solicitor General and First Liberty network attorney who argued Kennedy’s case, also celebrated the win.

“After seven long years, Coach Kennedy can finally return to the place he belongs – coaching football and quietly praying by himself after the game. This is a great victory for Coach Kennedy and the First Amendment,” Clement said. 

Coach Kennedy released a statement too, saying, “This is just so awesome.” 

“All I’ve ever wanted was to be back on the field with my guys. I am incredibly grateful to the Supreme Court, my fantastic legal team, and everyone who has supported us. I thank God for answering our prayers and sustaining my family through this long battle,” he said. 

The case is Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, No. 21-418 in the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Katherine Hamilton is a political reporter for Breitbart News. You can follow her on Twitter.

Source

TLBTalk Radio: Trust Betrayed



TLBTalk Radio (E23): Trust Betrayed (Archived)

Listen to Archived Show below Intro Article

See Focus Article Link below Archived Show

••••

(SHOW SPONSOR)

••••

Commentary by your Host: Roger Landry (TLB)

Hello everyone and welcome to Episode #23 of TLBTalk Radio.

On this episode we will delve into something I discuss quite often … Programmed Ignorance … intentionally hiding or redirecting away from vital truths, in order to facilitate changes that we not only don’t wish … but will have very little to say as to their implementation. Changes that we would never consider, being stealthily forced upon We The People via mechanisms of control (Plandemic) in a world that is influenced more daily by a caste of (so-called) elites, bent on absolute authoritarian control over humanity and the world.

But, as usual, before we get started I would like to once again, say thanks to RBN for the platform (explained in broadcast), to Sam, the show producer, and to Annie at Shake and Wake Radio for this shows replays on Thursdays, and for also hosting my newest show (with Co-Host Stephen Roberts) Eagle’s Eye Report on Wednesdays from 4-5 PM Central. They are all a very significant part of the weekly success of The Liberty Beacon Project’s Message

Again I will state that the message I bring to you today is not entertainment, nor is it baseless guesses, or remote possibilities. Most of what I deliver is in your face reality, recorded facts or an inevitability depending on our course of action.

••••

So, let’s jump into this …

This weeks show is based loosely (with my commentary and verbal tags) on an article by someone I read often, someone who actually makes sense, someone who seems to do his homework … Jeffrey A. Tucker the Founder and President of the Brownstone Institute.

So let’s begin by discussing Trust. Trust is something that is extremely necessary for any society to flourish. Trust that your laws are just. Trust that you leaders are responsible. Trust that your government represents you and not their wishes and desires. Trust that has been taken for granted via Programmed Ignorance to the point where We The People now stand on the precipice of massive tyranny in our face … and our most vital questions are … can we still recover … regain control … or is America doomed to totalitarian governance by global elites via their Great Reset nightmare?

Jeffrey States:

Corruption and lies: they surround us everywhere. It’s shocking to think how naive we have been. Consider all the things that were generally believed that turn out not to be true.

For example, we believed that:

  • We had a Bill of Rights that protected our freedom of action, speech, religion, and movement, until it was all take away;

  • We had courts that checked overweening powers of government at all levels;

  • We would never have schools shut by arbitrary edict for a virus we knew for sure posed little to no risk to the kids;

  • We had legislatures that would be responsive to the people and not lock their own voters in homes but less allow half the population to be demonized as disease spreaders;

  • We had drug regulators that would thoroughly vet any medication that would be marketed to us by top public health officials;

  • We would never be required to take a medicine we did not want and did not need on the condition of keeping our jobs;

  • The main drivers of the scientific process is evidence and integrity, and this is due to respected editors and guardians of truth;

  • Major media organs would not set out deliberately to lie to people day after day, month after month, in service of large corporate and government interests;

  • Small businesses, parks, arts venues, and civic associations would never be shut down because they are the heart of American commercial and civic life;

  • We had a Treasury and Federal Reserve that would not deliberately devalue the dollar and drive down the incomes of the middle class;

  • That respected people in top positions coming out of the best universities would not lie through their teeth merely to please financial benefactors.

  • That the First Amendment would prevent the government from colluding with the media to suppress information and muzzle individuals with valuable opinions.

  • The people we trusted the most to call upon in times of need – police, doctors, community leaders, social workers, medical institutions – would not and could not become our most feared oppressors and enemies;

  • Above all, there were limits to what governments in collusion with private interests could do to us, our rights, and liberties.

We could expand this list without limit. The point is clear. We’ve been betrayed in ways that we never thought possible.

We didn’t even know the extent to which we once trusted; trust in some measure has long been baked into the experience of American life. Americans generally see themselves as earnest and sincere members of a glorious commercial republic who, despite failings here and there, inhabit a society that is always striving for the good. And yet we now look at our institutions and we are aghast to find that something very different has grown up among us, and in very short order.

It’s time to get real! Listen up …

••••

TLBTalk Radio (E23): Trust Betrayed

Listen to this archived show by clicking on the image below:

••••

Read Jeffrey A. Tucker‘s Full Article

WITNESS: The Mass Betrayal of Trust

••••

For more Archived Episodes click on the image below

••••

Show Song

••••

About the Author & Host: Roger Landry (TLB) spent about three decades of his adult life either in, or working for the military, with about two decades working directly for the Military Industrial Complex facilitating DOD contracts. His awakening to Political, Economic, and Health realities was about twelve short years ago. Since that time he has founded The Liberty Beacon Project (TLB) consisting of a half dozen proprietary global websites, media projects and partner websites across the planet. He contributes regularly to multiple forums both in and outside of TLB Project. Most of his work can be found on the TLB Flagship website TheLibertyBeacon.com

••••

Click on the image below to visit site:

••••

••••

Stay tuned to …

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Share this…
Share on FacebookPin on PinterestTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Source

Historic Supreme Court Decisions Loom on Abortion, Guns, Religious Liberty

Historic Supreme Court Decisions Loom on Abortion, Guns, Religious Liberty

WASHINGTON, DC – The Supreme Court is expected in the next seven days to hand down five major decisions, three of which will be huge, and potentially material for the history books –on abortion, the Second Amendment, and religious liberty.

The Supreme Court’s term begins the first Monday of October, and officially lasts until the date of the next term’s October start date. But the court’s term as a public matter usually ends in the final week of June, which is now right around the corner.

This year is unusual in the number of extremely consequential cases it has. This week the court held in Carson v. Makin that Maine violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause by excluding Christian schools from a school aid program. But with Carson decided, fully five of the court’s 13 remaining cases are also major cases.

One is Biden v. Texas, about President Joe Biden’s attempt to shut down one of former President Donald Trump’s signature policies, the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), better known as “Remain in Mexico,” without which the number of illegal aliens making it into this country would be far higher.

A second is West Virginia v. EPA, about whether Biden’s EPA has almost unlimited authority to issue sweeping environmental regulations that could transform the American economy.

Those are both very important issues, but could be eclipsed by the remaining three in terms of legal significance. One at least should be nothing short of historic,.

One is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, about whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms extends outside the home. The only two major gun rights cases decided by the Supreme Court involved citizens who wanted handguns at home for self-protection, and now the court will consider how that right applies as citizens go about their daily lives.

Another is Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, about a former U.S. Marine high school football coach who was fired by a public school for his custom of offering a short, silent prayer on his team’s football field after each Friday night football game. This case could be a major ruling on three separate First Amendment issues: free speech rights in schools and/or for government employees, the right to freely exercise religion for government workers, and the proper meaning of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause, which forbids the government from adopting an official religion.

An activist carries a placard with an image of US Supreme Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh during a Planned Parenthood Pro-Choice Rally in Boston, Massachusetts, on May 14, 2022. - Thousands of activists are participating in a national day of action calling for safe and legal access to abortion. The nationwide demonstrations are a response to leaked draft opinion showing the US Supreme Court's conservative majority is considering overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling guaranteeing abortion access. (Photo by Joseph Prezioso / AFP) (Photo by JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images)

An activist carries a placard with an image of US Supreme Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh during a Planned Parenthood Pro-Choice Rally in Boston, Massachusetts, on May 14, 2022. (JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images)

Finally – of course – is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenging a Mississippi ban on abortions after 15 weeks, in which it now looks like a majority of the Supreme Court is willing to overrule Roe v. Wade by holding that the Constitution does not include an implied right to abortion. One way or the other, Dobbs will feature prominently in history books concerning this period of time in America.

The court is currently scheduled to release more decisions this Thursday and Friday, as well as next Monday.

Ken Klukowski is an attorney who served in the White House and Justice Department, and is a Breitbart News contributor. Follow him @kenklukowski.

Source

Dissident Football Coach Fined $100k for Wrong Thoughts

Dissident Football Coach Fined $100k for Wrong Thoughts

Comrades, a dissident member of the National Football League named Jack Del Rio has been caught publicly expressing wrong thoughts.

The NFL Ministry of Social Justice and NFL Homeland Tolerance and Social Cohesion Agency launched an investigation and assigned a social demerit punishment equal to $100,000 that will be removed from his financial accounts as a warning to others.

(Reuters) – The Washington Commanders said on Friday they fined defensive coordinator Jack Del Rio $100,000 after he minimized last year’s assault on the U.S. Capitol a “dust-up” compared to the 2020 racial justice protests that followed George Floyd’s death. (link)

Comrade Del Rio was made to apologize for his non-compliant thinking and brazen display of verbal violence toward society.  His reeducation began almost immediately.

Washington head coach Ron Rivera said in a statement that he met Del Rio earlier on Friday, “words have consequences and his words hurt a lot of people in our community,” Mr Rivera reiterated.

Good citizens are reminded to keep a lookout for subversive or rebellious activities that could harm the sensibilities of correct thinking citizens.

If you spot any suspicious whispering or unauthorized smiling that might indicate the presence of conversation against the interests of our new society, you are reminded to contact regional FBI authorities immediately.  You can remain anonymous and may be eligible for enhanced social credit deposits in your gasoline equity account.

Source

Don’t diss us: School district ‘violating Constitution’ with teacher contracts

Don’t diss us: School district ‘violating Constitution’ with teacher contracts

(Photo by Sincerely Media on Unsplash)

(Photo by Sincerely Media on Unsplash)

The Rutherford Institute, which fights on behalf of civil and religious rights, has dispatched a letter to a Texas school district challenging officials’ decision to include a “non-disparagement” clause in teacher contracts.

That provision requires that teachers agree to “not disparage, criticize, or defame the district, and its employees or officials, to the media.”

However, that provision likely violates the Constitution in at least two ways, the legal team explained in a letter to the trustees and superintendent of the Carroll Independent School District.

“The courts would likely find such a restriction on speech by a public school to be in violation of the First Amendment. Because the non-disparagement clause only prohibits criticism of the district, its officials, and employees – but does not prohibit employees from praising or commending the district and its officials – it would likely be considered impermissible viewpoint discrimination which is prohibited by the First Amendment,” the letter informed the district.

As public bodies entrusted with the care and education of America’s children, schools should be free speech forums that encourage critical thinking skills,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “Forcing teachers to muzzle their concerns about the government’s policies or actions sends a chilling message to students that there is no room for transparency and accountability in government.”

“In 2021, the Texas legislature enacted House Bill 3979, commonly referred to as Texas’ ‘critical race theory law,’ which requires teachers who choose to discuss ‘controversial issues of public policy or social affairs’ in the classroom to strive to present multiple perspectives. During a training session, an administrator at the Carroll Independent School District suggested that if teachers have a book on the Holocaust, they should also provide a book from an opposing perspective. The suggestion dismayed teachers, spurring them to speak out publicly on the issue and resulting in significant media attention and criticism of the school district for its interpretation of House Bill 3979,” The institute explained, “

The new clause started appearing in contract paperwork just months later.

“The clause prohibits criticism of the district, its officials, and employees to the media but does not prohibit employees from praising or commending the district and its officials.”

The institute’s legal analysis warns the district “muzzling teachers in order to avoid bad press is unconstitutional. Whether the individual is a teacher, parent, student or member of the community, the right to publicly criticize a government body is firmly grounded in the First Amendment.”

The institute said, “public school teachers…cannot ‘constitutionally be compelled to relinquish the First Amendment rights they would otherwise enjoy as citizens to comment on matters of public interest in connection with the operation of the public schools in which they work.’”

The letter noted, “It appears that the Carroll Independent School District is seeking to avoid discomfort and unpleasantness by censoring critical viewpoints through its non-disparagement clause. The non-disparagement clause also seeks to hide concerns and prevent the public from learning about them. However, district employees should be free to widely inform the public, and especially parents, through the media about concerning issues particularly involving how their children are being treated and educated so that the public can express their desires to their elected officials on the Board and make informed decisions when voting for trustees to represent them.”

Source: https://www.wnd.com/2022/05/dont-diss-us-school-district-violating-constitution-teacher-contracts/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=wnd-breaking&utm_campaign=breaking&utm_content=breaking&ats_es=7c01bd42ec6b5fbe1897e7664f974262

Source

Eagle’s Eye Report: Media Trust Implosion

Eagle’s Eye Report: Media Trust Implosion


Eagle’s Eye Report: Media Trust Implosion (Archived)

Host: Roger Landry (TLB) – Co-Host & Producer: Stephen Roberts

Brought to you by: TLBTalk.com – Where Freedom Roars

Live Broadcast platform: ShakeAndWake Radio Network

Listen to Archived show below intro article

Intro by: Roger Landry (TLB)

Welcome to Episode #3 of the Eagle’s Eye Report. Hosted by myself, Roger Landry (TLB), and Co-Hosted and Produced by my good friend and fellow patriot – Stephen Roberts. The mission of this show is to be a mechanism for communicating the truth and facts in a country increasingly forbidding of these very concepts.

No, this not a pleasant way to introduce a show … but today reality is blatant and not very pleasant in many aspects. Thus the reason for the Eagle’s Eye Report. This show airs weekly on multiple forums and on several others as an archived show embedded in an article (as we present here).

Our mission (of this show) is to keep you armed with the vital truth, as well as to give you a platform where you can discuss these vital issues without fear of censorship or exclusion, that being the sponsor of this show … TLBTalk.com.

Today we will discuss the state of trust in media … from the Mainstream to the big tech platforms, and their increasingly rapid drop is trust factor beyond even our wildest expectations a mere 2 decades ago. Today trust in Mainstream or Big Tech media is in a free-fall with many polls showing even the most trusted (over generations) media suffering well below a 50% approval rating … why … how?

Today we discuss the weaponization of information via the above mechanisms to program society with ignorance meant to advance a globalist agenda that holds no benefit for We The People. Look around you at the most chaotic period in American, if not Global history and you will not find any comparison … even in times of past world wars.

All of this hearkens to the very reason for the creation and the proliferation of the TLBTalk.com, a platform launched to give you not only a place to learn … but also to teach. A Platform designed to guarantee you the freedom to speak your mind … but if your message is false or built on lies … it does not guarantee you an audience. All considered, such as the total lack of any government or corporate influence, this platform will only be what you and its membership are willing to make it. Consider this an experiment in just how bad we wish the right to freely exercise our First Amendment … and we will carry on from there.

Show Talking Points

  • Why did TLB Project bother to set up a social media platform like TLBTalk.com
  • Why no Corporate investment, funding or advertisements.
  • When did the trust in Mainstream Media start to die in earnest
  • CIA Money … Government Money … Big Pharma Money … Big Corporate Money
  • Globalist agenda … Corporate Alignment

  • Government consider via section 230
  • Programmed Ignorance … What you see, is all there is
  • Shadow Banning
  • Fact Checkers
  • Hunter Biden laptop
  • 2020 election lies …Trump Russian Collusion
  • The reason and need for TLBTalk …

Listen up …

••••

Eagle’s Eye Report: Media Trust Implosion (Archived)

(Click on image below to listen)

••••

RELATED:

Eagle’s Eye Report: Premier Show

(The need for this show – Archived)

(Click on image below to listen)

••••

About the Articles Author Roger Landry (TLB) spent about three decades of his adult life either in, or working for the military, with about two decades working directly for the Military Industrial Complex facilitating DOD contracts. His awakening to Political, Economic, and Health realities was about twelve short years ago. Since that time he has founded The Liberty Beacon Project (TLB) consisting of a half dozen proprietary global websites, media projects and partner websites across the planet. He contributes regularly to multiple forums both in and outside of TLB Project. Most of his work can be found on the TLB Flagship website TheLibertyBeacon.com

••••

Click on the image below to visit/join our sponsors site:

••••

••••

Stay tuned to …

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Share this…
Share on FacebookPin on PinterestTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)