
No worries…



The formation of totalitarianism is often insidious in that it is almost always sold to the public as “humanitarian”; a solution for the greater good of the greater number. But beyond that, tyrants will also exploit the ideals of the target population and use these principles against them. Like weaknesses in the armor of a free society, our ideals of freedom are not necessarily universally applicable at all times and in all circumstances; we have to place some limits in order to prevent oligarchy from using liberalism as a tool to gain a foothold.
This battle for balance is the defining drama of all societies that endeavor to be free. It might sound hypocritical, and your typical anarchist and some libertarians will completely dismiss the notion that there should be any limits to what people (or companies) can do, especially when it comes to their private property. But at what point do private property rights encroach on the rights of others? Is it simply black and white? Does anything go? The bottom line is, in the wake of covid controls and mass online censorship, it is time for those of us in the liberty movement to have a frank discussion about where the line is for the rights of businesses.
The problem went mainstream initially a few years back when Big Tech companies that control the majority of social media sites decided that they were going to start actively targeting conservative users with shadow bans and outright censorship.
Here’s the thing: If we are talking about smaller websites run by private individuals, then yes, I would argue in defense of their right to remove anyone from their site for almost any reason. Their website is their property, and much like their home they can do whatever they want within it. Denial of access to an average website is not going to damage the ability of a person to live their normal lives, nor will it fundamentally restrict their ability to share information with others. There are always other websites.
But what if we are talking about massive international conglomerates? Should these corporations be given the same free rein to do as they wilt? Do private property rights and free markets extend to them as well, even if their goal is the destruction of the very principles of freedom we hold dear?
And, what if a host of small businesses in a given place decide they are going to implement freedom crushing mandates along with major corporations? What if they are all manipulated by government incentives or pressure?
What if governments do not need to implement totalitarianism directly at first because businesses are doing it for them? Do the dynamics of private property change in this case?
Remember that time when the mainstream media lied about former President Donald J. Trump, only to have Trump proven correct afterwards?
“Can you be more specific,” you ask?
Good point.
There are so many to mention, we need to be more precise, so let’s narrow the list down to five, and let’s consider the true impact of their dishonesty.
While the media may have been successful in sustaining political damage against Trump, the Republican Party, and the conservative movement – which was their ultimate goal, no doubt – they also caused significant collateral damage, either unwittingly or uncaringly.
A male rat in China has given birth by Caesarean section after a ‘vile’ experiment that involved joining it to a female rat and transplanting a uterus.
Scientists from the Naval Medical University in Shanghai said the experiment may have ‘a profound impact on reproductive biology.’
They did not spell out the implications for humans but it comes after studies exploring the possibility of transplanting a uterus into transgender women.
The team joined a male and female rat together by attaching their skin and sharing their blood, then transplanting a uterus into the male and implanting embryos into both male and female rats.
The embryos were allowed to develop to term, that is 21.5 days, with ten successful pups out of 27 ‘normal’ embryos in the male delivered by Caesarean section.
Those went on to live into adulthood and were able to reproduce, suffering no wider ill effects to heart, lung or liver, the team explained.
The scientists said: ‘A mammalian animal model of male pregnancy was constructed by us.’ However, PETA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor, Emily McIvor, called the study ‘frankenscience’ and ‘vile’.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has pushed back an emergency meeting on post-vaccination heart inflammation seen in Americans, primarily young people, because of a new federal holiday.
President Joe Biden signed a bill on Thursday making June 19 a new holiday, Juneteenth. Shortly afterwards, the CDC said its June 18 meeting “is being rescheduled due to the observation of the Juneteenth National Independence Day holiday.”
A federal office said Thursday that because June 19 falls on a Saturday this year, the observation will take place on Friday.
The meeting, which was deemed an emergency when announced last week, will now be folded into a June 23 to June 25 virtual meeting, the CDC said.
The agency did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
CDC officials planned to present to the agency’s vaccine advisory panel updated information on myocarditis and pericarditis in people who have received a COVID-19 vaccine.
A CDC official told members of the Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory committee on June 10 that more than 800 reports of post-vaccination heart inflammation have been submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, a passive reporting system run jointly by the administration and the CDC.
That included 475 among those 30 or younger, of which 226 have been verified as meeting the CDC’s working case definition.
Democrat Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold on Thursday announced her office issued emergency rules prohibiting election audits.
“My office just issued rules prohibiting sham election audits in the State of Colorado. We will not risk the state’s election security nor perpetuate The Big Lie. Fraudits have no place in Colorado,” Griswold announced, taking a swipe at the Arizona audit.
In Thursday’s press release, Griswold boasted that Colorado’s elections are considered the “safest in the nation.”
The axis of liberal media outlets and their allied activist groups— CNN, NBC News, The Washington Post, Media Matters — are in an angry uproar over a recent report questioning the foreknowledge and involvement of the FBI in the January 6 Capitol riot. As soon as that new report was published on Monday, a consensus instantly emerged in these liberal media precincts that this is an unhinged, ignorant and insane conspiracy theory that deserves no consideration.
The original report, published by Revolver News and then amplified by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, documented ample evidence of FBI infiltration of the three key groups at the center of the 1/6 investigation — the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and the Three Percenters — and noted how many alleged riot leaders from these groups have not yet been indicted. While low-level protesters have been aggressively charged with major felonies and held without bail, many of the alleged plot leaders have thus far been shielded from charges.
The implications of these facts are obvious. It seems extremely likely that the FBI had numerous ways to know of any organized plots regarding the January 6 riot (just as the U.S. intelligence community, by its own admission, had ample advanced clues of the 9/11 attack but, according to their excuse, tragically failed to “connect the dots”). There is no doubt that the FBI has infiltrated at least some if not all of these groups — which it has been warning for years pose a grave national security threat — with informants and/or undercover spies. It is known that Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio has served as an FBI informant in the past, and the disrupted 2020 plot by Three Percenters members to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) was shaped and driven by what The Wall Street Journal reportedwere the FBI’s “undercover agents and confidential informants.”
“I gave (Putin) a list, if I’m not mistaken I don’t have it in front of me, 16 specific entities, 16 defined as critical infrastructure” that Putin should not cyberattack, Biden said.
We have questions.
Did Biden make Putin pinky swear, cross his heart and hope to die if he attacks items on the list anyway?
Does that list allow Putin a free hand to go and cyberattack anything in the United States that isn’t on it? “You didn’t put it on list, comrade, so we hack it,” Putin chuckles as he text Xi with a string of laughing emojis.
On what planet is it a good idea to give a potential adversary a list of things you do not want him to attack?
When you play Risk, the classic game of world conquest, do you give your competitors a list of countries you don’t want them to attack? Would you expect them to abide by that?
When you play Stratego, the classic strategy war game of intrigue, do you tell your opponent where your spies and bombs are? Do you honestly expect to win if you do that?
When you run for office, do you go meet with your competitor and hand them a list of the skeletons in your closet with a plea not to go after them? Would you expect any of those items to not end up in the media within a nanosecond?

You must be logged in to post a comment.