Real Goal of the Alex Jones Judgement

Alex Jones has to pay $1 billion. He says he will fight, delay, and appeal for years. In any case, he is likely done. Still, the reason for what was done to him is apparent to anyone paying attention. Just look at this article from the Guardian: Only proper online regulation can stop poisonous conspiracists like Alex Jones and by Alex Jones, they mean anyone on the right, including and especially Donald Trump. I quote:

Jones, like QAnon, Donald Trump and others, can navigate fake news sites and social media to reach millions…No one seriously believes free speech is an absolute right. The British government is now making desperate attempts to define such concepts as “causing offence” and “legal but harmful”. More ruthless efforts at control are emerging from authoritarian regimes in Russia, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia. The EU, too, is pondering regulation. But this realm of government is patently in its infancy.

The freedom of speech which to John Milton was “above all liberties” is not that simple today.

You get that? They consider censorship like Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the EU, and the UK are preferable to the freedom to say what you think. That is the lesson of Alex Jones: shut up, peasant. Silencing the opposition, it’s what every communist revolution needs to do.


Do you want to know what is coming here in the US? All you have to do is listen. On August 26, Biden told Democrats that, “The MAGA Republicans don’t just threaten our personal rights and economic security… They’re a threat to our very democracy. They refuse to accept the will of the people. Trump and the extreme MAGA Republicans have made their choice — to go backwards full of anger, violence, hate, and division. But we’ve chosen a different path forward, the future, unity, hope and optimism.”

Then, just last week, the White House Press Secretary said that anyone who doesn’t agree with Democrats is an extremist.

The President himself then sent this message out on social media.

The NY Times is comparing the American right to ISIS and the Taliban. The Times goes on to call the grievances of the right “either wild exaggerations or outright fantasies — antifa supersoldiers, totalitarian globalists, satanic pedophiles.”

Now word comes out just today that Hillary Clinton said 9/11 is a reminder US must ‘deal with extremism of any kind.’ Then the reporter asked Clinton, “All of America’s elected officials really genuinely put party aside and came together after those attacks. Would that be possible today?”

“Well, I hope that it will be, and I give President Biden a lot of credit for trying to continue to reach out to people while still sounding the alarm about the threats to our democracy,” Clinton responded.

So the party that spent the four years of the Trump presidency screaming ‘resist’ and ‘not my President’ while simultaneously doing all that they could to oppose Trump’s policies is, now that their party is in the Oval Office, demanding that the entire country fall in line behind the President.

That isn’t how this works. Still, Clinton went on: “So we are in a funny position, Dana, because there’s a small, but very vocal, very powerful, very determined minority who wants to impose their views on all the rest of us, and it’s time for everybody, regardless of party to say, ‘No, that’s not who we are as America.’”

It’s working. In a Reuters poll, most Americans polled see Trump supporters as being a threat to the country. Fifty-eight percent of respondents in the poll – including one in four Republicans – said Trump’s supporters are threatening America’s democratic foundations.

This is the sort of talk that you would expect in a country where a political power or a dictator is getting ready to purge people, is getting ready to ethnically cleanse people. This is not normal talk.

Professor William A Jacobson, Founder of the Website Legal Insurrection

It’s clear- they intend to eliminate what they are referring to as a “threat to democracy.” That threat is anyone who opposes them.

That threat to be eliminated is you.

End Run

If a cop asks a criminal to break into your house to search it for evidence of a crime as an end run around the Fourth Amendment’s requirement for a search warrant, is that an infringement of your rights?

If the government asks a media company to censor free speech in order to influence an election, were people’s rights violated?

The FBI is the Sword and Shield of the Democrat party.


The Lt. Governor of Pennsylvania says that the First Amendment does not protect people who claim the election was stolen. According to him, freedom of speech means the ability to “talk all day about what [your] favorite football team is,” but no one has the right to say “incendiary lies” about the election.

He uses the “fire in a theater” excuse, which is a load of bullshit. As I have written here before:

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the most well-known, misquoted, and misused phrase in Supreme Court history: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

Without fail, whenever any controversy about limiting people’s rights comes up, someone will misquote this phrase as proof of limits on the right to free speech, then use that as support for their claim that all rights have limits. Whatever that controversy may be, the law can then be interpreted to mean that we should limit the rights of the people. Holmes’ quote has become a crutch for every would be tyrant in America.

Go read the case where the phrase originated before using it as your argument. I will wait. The case is U.S. v. Schenck, and it was so bad that was overturned more than 50 years ago.

The case had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I. The case didn’t call for violence. It did not even call for civil disobedience. It simply urged people to vote out any politician who supported it.

The crowded theater remark that everyone likes to trot out was an analogy Holmes made before issuing the court’s holding. He was explaining that the First Amendment is not absolute. The actual ruling, that the pamphlet posed a “clear and present danger” to a nation at war, landed Schenk in prison. That case, along with two others, was used to toss people in prison for daring to oppose or speak out against President Wilson’s policies.

The case was effectively overturned in 1969, with the Supreme Court’s decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio. In that case, the Court held that inflammatory speech, even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan, is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Sound familiar? This is why they can’t do shit about what President Trump had to say on January 6, nor can they legally shut down the speech of the right. So instead, they are allowing large megacorporations to have monopolies on the digital town square, they coopting them into performing the censorship for them.

Florida: Home of the Resistance

The Capitol Police work for Nancy Pelosi. Now they are hiring their own prosecutor. Don’t forget that the Capitol Police have a field office in Tampa. The fact that Pelosi is setting up her own secret police force that will enforce her edicts using her own prosecutors has nothing whatsoever to do with Florida residents leading the nation in J6 arrests and prosecutions.

DeSantis needs to stay Florida governor. We need him to lead the resistance. Of course, that turncoat asshole Charlie Christ is demanding an investigation into why Florida is so resistant to the left’s shenanigans. The left’s hate for Florida has been high because of two events: Al Gore lost Florida and the Presidency to George Bush by 537 votes in 2000, and Trump beat Hillary in Florida by 113,000 votes to become President in 2016.

My Thoughts on Uvalde

Anther shooting, and the left is predictably dancing in the victim’s blood before the scene is even cleared or the families of the dead are notified. It’s so predictable: calls for gun control that would not have mattered. The current calls are for universal background checks (in other words, gun registration). This young man who did the shooting had a clear record, would have passed a background check, and a proposed BG check law would have done nothing.

No, every shooting and its victims are simply political fodder to advance a political agenda. The left doesn’t give a rip about the victims, except to the extent that they can be used to advance that agenda, truth and facts be damned. As we proved just this week on this very blog, the left doesn’t care about facts, logic, or the truth.

To debate the left about gun control is a complete waste of time, because they won’t listen. So I just won’t do it. You want gun control? No. Your move.

No, what I want to talk about is social media’s responsibility for this shooting. He was a troubled child that grew into a troubled young man. The clues were there, but as often happens in these cases, no one said anything. Word is, the shooter posted pictures of his guns to social media, and said that a shooting was coming. He actually told one woman it was coming.

In the hours leading up to the killings, the shooter reportedly showed off his guns to an LA-based woman via his Instagram page, taunting that he was ‘about to do’ something.

When the woman asked what, he said: ‘I’ll tell you before 11.’ He began shooting at noon.

The school had purchased technology to monitor social media, but it apparently didn’t work.

So now we come to the point I am trying to make. I have been tossed into Facebook jail dozens of times. Sometimes within minutes of posting something that didn’t agree with their leftist viewpoints. So how can a person post threats to carry out a mass shooting, and Instagram (the site where the threatening posts were made) didn’t notice?

The technology exists for social media companies to monitor what people post. We know it, because they have done it for the past several years. Why don’t they report these things? The only possible answer is that they don’t because they WANT more shootings so the dead victims can be used to advance their agenda.

Shut Out Opposing Opinions

There is a local media story about the New York mass shooter. One of the comments on the story was “Why didn’t a good guy with a gun neutralize him before he killed?”

I typed a great answer: “Because NY has made sure that very few good guys can carry guns. Especially not in black neighborhoods. It is a difficult and expensive process that requires a visit to a judge and must be repeated every 5 years. Despite having similar populations, Florida has ten times as many concealed weapons permit holders than New York.
On top of that, New York doesn’t allow anyone to own magazines that hold more than ten rounds. The bad guy in this case ignored that law.”

That comment lasted less than 20 minutes before it was “deactivated” because it violated the community standards. Since the left can’t defend their ideas with logic and facts, they resort to all they know how to do- shut down the debate.