Hellbound and Down

Another Google Court Loss: Federal Judge Orders Tech Giant to Change Its Ad Practices After Ruling It Ran Illegal Monopoly

Google received another public flogging in federal court on Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, ordered Google to stop the conduct that has been strangling revenue from web publishers for years — the latest blow in the government’s antitrust case against the tech giant’s advertising empire.

This follows Brinkema’s ruling last year that Google violated US antitrust laws by unlawfully maintaining monopoly power in open web display advertising. It was the SECOND time a federal judge ruled that Google held an illegal monopoly in part of its business, after Judge Amit Mehta found the same thing in online search.

Google is a monopolist. The courts confirmed this again.

The Department of Justice announced its victory in their case in April 2025:

“This is a landmark victory in the ongoing fight to stop Google from monopolizing the digital public square,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “This Department of Justice will continue taking bold legal action to protect the American people from encroachments on free speech and free markets by tech companies.”

Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater went even further in the same DOJ statement:

“The Court’s ruling is clear: Google is a monopolist and has abused its monopoly power. Google’s unlawful dominance allows them to censor and even deplatform American voices. And at the same time, Google destroyed and hid information that exposed its illegal conduct. Today’s opinion confirms Google’s controlling hand over online advertising and, increasingly, the internet itself.”

Google censors and deplatforms American voices. The DOJ said it clear and out loud.

Keep reading

Trump’s Saudi Nuclear Agreement May Prolong the Iran War

A final deal between the United States and Iran is slipping further out of reach. Since the Memorandum of Understanding collapsed in July, the prospects for reviving it have deteriorated by the day. While Tehran publicly demands a return to the MOU, Trump’s current position is that even if Iran reopened the Strait of Hormuz, he would neither return to the agreement nor lift the blockade on Iran. And even in the unlikely event that he did, the MOU could not come back into force as long as Israel continues to bombard Lebanon. Iran is unlikely to accept an MOU minus Lebanon: its demand for a regional ceasefire is non-negotiable.

But even if these obstacles were resolved, profound differences over the nuclear issue would remain. And those differences have now grown dramatically more severe because of Trump’s nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia. The details of the deal were just made public, and Kelsey Davenport at the Arms Control Association has published an excellent FAQ addressing its most important aspects.

The bottom line is: Trump is granting Saudi Arabia access to the same uranium-enrichment technology the United States has sought to deny Iran for more than three decades, while imposing a far weaker inspection regime on Saudi nuclear activities. In effect, Washington is providing Riyadh a pathway to the bomb while insisting that Iran have no enrichment capability whatsoever – the infamous zero-enrichment objective.

As ACA writes,

“the Trump administration rejected key nonproliferation conditions for U.S. nuclear cooperation that have long-standing bipartisan support and are internationally recognized best practices.

Most critically, the deal does not require Saudi Arabia to adhere to the more intrusive International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards agreement, known as the Additional Protocol.”

As a point of comparison, Iran began voluntarily implementing the Additional Protocol (AP) under Obama’s nuclear deal in 2016 and was expected to ratify it once the United States formally lifted sanctions through Congress. That never happened, however, because Trump withdrew from the agreement in May 2018.

Moreover, Trump’s agreement with Saudi Arabia gives the kingdom a pathway to develop a uranium-enrichment program reaching 20 percent. Again, the comparison with Iran is revealing. When Iran expanded its enrichment to 20 percent in 2010 to produce fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor – which, ironically, the United States had given Iran in the late 1960s as part of the Atoms for Peace program – Washington pointed to the move as further evidence of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons ambitions.

State Department spokesperson Philip Crowley said on February 11, 2010, that Iran’s decision to begin enriching to 20 percent “further solidifies… our impression and that of the international community that Iran’s nuclear intentions are anything but peaceful.” At the UN Security Council, then-Ambassador Susan Rice argued that Iran’s decision moved it “closer to weapons-grade material,” as she made the case for new UN sanctions against Tehran.

Now, Trump wants Congress to approve a deal with Saudi Arabia that gives the kingdom access to precisely that technology – but with far fewer inspections – while bombing Iran to prevent it from having any enrichment at all.

Keep reading

Tyranny by Technicality: The Supreme Court Will Not Save Our Republic

“The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of the people.”—Justice William O. Douglas

For years, we have been warning that the U.S. Supreme Court would not save us from the American police state.

That warning has not grown less urgent. It has simply become more complicated.

The danger today is not merely that courts will favor order and procedure over freedom. It is that by the time justice makes an appearance, it will arrive so narrowly, so procedurally and so late that the government will already have prevailed.

Consider the fight over President Trump’s massive $400 million White House ballroom.

Lower courts found serious reason to doubt Trump’s claim to unilateral authority to tear down the historic East Wing and proceed with the project without congressional approval, and they ordered above-ground construction halted.

Those orders were stayed while the administration appealed.

Construction continued.

Then the administration argued that the project had progressed so far that stopping it had become impractical.

On August 31, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5–4 vote, allowed the construction to continue—not because it determined that Trump had acted legally, but because the majority concluded that the preservationists challenging the project likely lacked legal standing to sue.

The Supreme Court expressly declined to decide whether the project itself was lawful.

Chief Justice John Roberts, joining the Court’s three liberal justices in dissent, warned that allowing the project to proceed was “no victory for the separation of powers.”

Therein lies the problem with justice in the age of the American police state: by the time the courts finally decide whether government officials have overstepped their constitutional authority, the deed may already be done, the right already violated and the damage already inflicted.

The building is already gone. The troops are already deployed. The surveillance system is already operating. The people are already detained. The agency is already dismantled. The data is already collected. The war is already underway.

And whatever constitutional principle eventually emerges from the litigation arrives too late to undo the damage.

At what point will “We the People” be told that we, too, lack standing to object to the destruction of our republic?

The Founders built safeguards into the constitutional system to guard against any one branch of government becoming all-powerful: If the president overreaches, Congress is supposed to stop him. If Congress fails to do its duty, the courts are supposed to intervene. If a lower court gets it wrong, the Supreme Court will set things right.

That is how the system is supposed to work.

Keep reading

OUTRAGE: Texas Student’s School Laptop BLOCKS Search for President Trump — But Allows Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Jeffrey Epstein

A Richardson Independent School District parent says her son’s school-issued laptop blocked him from searching for the sitting President of the United States, while searches for Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein went through without a hitch.

The district has so far refused to explain why.

According to an exclusive report from The Dallas Express, an anonymous Richardson ISD parent provided video of her son attempting to research President Donald Trump for a school assignment. When he searched “Trump,” the device displayed a blunt message: “WEBSITE BLOCKED BY RICHARDSON ISD.”

The same block did not appear for Biden, Harris, or Epstein.

“My child was researching our current president for a school assignment and discovered that the district’s web content filter had blocked ‘Trump’ from search results,” the parent told The Dallas Express.

“This means students can’t access legitimate educational and news content, including current-events research, government and civics coursework, and basic search results about the sitting U.S. President. This is very concerning, as it amounts to censorship of information about a current public official.”

She then had her son test other names.

Keep reading

Muslim Convert Minnesota AG Keith Ellison Forced to Return $12,500 From Somali Fraudsters After Secret Tape Caught Him Promising to “Fight These People” and Unfreeze Their Welfare Cash

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to statewide office in Minnesota and a convert from Catholicism, has quietly returned at least $12,500 in campaign cash from Somali figures tied to the massive Feeding Our Future welfare fraud after a secret recording surfaced of him huddling with the same crowd to fend off state investigators.

According to the Center of the American Experiment, the five refunded contributions included donations from Gandi Yusuf Mohamed and Liban Alishire, both of whom became defendants in the Feeding Our Future case.

As The Gateway Pundit reported in December, the 54-minute recording, obtained by the Center of the American Experiment and later entered as a trial exhibit, captured Ellison schmoozing with Somali-American operators who would later be charged or convicted in the Feeding Our Future scheme that looted more than $250 million in federal child-nutrition money meant for hungry kids.

The meeting participants complained that state regulators were acting in a “racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic manner” by asking questions about phantom meal sites.

“The only way we can protect what we have is by inserting ourselves into the political arena, putting our votes where it needs to be, but most importantly, putting our dollars in the right place,” Feeding Our Future consultant Abshir Omar said.

“But if you are secure in your donor base, and if you are secure in your power base, you can act the way you want to act,” Omar continued.

“Money is freedom,” Ellison replied with a laugh.

Keep reading

All Christian schools in Jerusalem shut after Israel refuses entry to Palestinian teachers

Christian schools in Jerusalem have been forced to indefinitely delay the start of the new academic year after Israeli authorities failed to renew entry permits for more than 70 teachers and staff living in the occupied West Bank.

Palestinians holding West Bank IDs generally require Israeli-issued permits to cross checkpoints into East Jerusalem. But Israeli authorities failed to renew entry permits for more than 70 teachers and staff “suddenly and without prior notice,” the General Secretariat for Christian Educational Institutions in Jerusalem said in a press statement shared with the media on Monday.

“Accordingly… it has been decided to suspend school attendance in the schools of the city of Jerusalem beginning Tuesday morning, 1 September 2026, until the necessary permits for teachers and staff are reissued and renewed,” the Secretariat said.

Keep reading

Federal court rules teachers’ Pride flag messages to children are not protected by 1st Amendment

A federal appeals court has ruled that teachers’ Pride flags, the pro-LGBT messaging they demanded to use on their public school students, are not protected by the First Amendment.

“Plaintiffs-Appellants Christopher Dolce, Sarah Ecke, and Shinaide McAleavey-Polley allege that the Connetquot Central School District and its officials violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and Title VII when it ordered them to remove the pride flags and stickers that decorated the walls of their public high school classrooms,” said the opinion from the 2nd U.S Circuit Court of Appeals.

“The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Gonzalez, J.) dismissed their complaint for failure to state a claim, and the teachers appealed. Applying Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), we conclude that the teachers’ classroom wall decorations constituted speech pursuant to their official duties as Government employees. As a result, the District did not violate their First Amendment rights when it ordered the teachers to remove them.

“We also conclude that the teachers have not plausibly pled that the District selectively enforced its policies against them because of an impermissible motivation, or that they suffered any adverse employment actions.”

Then a commentary at Twitchy revealed the surprise: The ruling was from “a Biden appointee who is a lesbian. That’s refreshing common sense.”

This surprise comes in an age when judges appointed by Barack Obama and Joe Biden routinely rule against President Donald Trump no matter the issue, the question or the legal dispute. One Washington-based leftist judge even has defied the U.S. Supreme Court in ruling politically against Trump.

The decision said, “Under Garcetti v. Ceballos … and its progeny, when public employees’ speech ‘owes its existence’ to their ‘professional responsibilities,’ the government – their employer – can control the content of that speech without implicating their Frist Amendment rights. The question in his case is whether that same principle applies to displays hung on the walls of a public high school teacher’s match classroom. We hold that it does.”

Keep reading

UN Calls for Global Slavery Reparations

A UN organ is making demands so incredible it would be unbelievable had we not heard similar loud cries from race hucksters a few years ago.

The UN’s Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) published a document calling for immediate “financial compensation, educational initiatives and institutional reforms” to remedy supposed harms that persist today as a result of the transatlantic slave trade, which ended more than 200 years ago (in fact, it was the West that led the charge in eliminating chattel slavery altogether, which had been happening everywhere since time immemorial).

The committee speaks with authority. It claims that the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) treaty “imposes broad and immediate obligations.”

The recommendation is directed at the 182 countries that ratified the ICERD treaty. That includes the United States, the U.K., France, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal, and many others. You can see the full list here.

Bold Claims, Bold Demands

The ICERD, though more than half a century old, is the basis for the bold demands in the CERD document. The committee also cites additional treaties for support, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Those treaties were adopted, respectively, in 1966 and 1984. The United States has ratified all of them, and they are considered binding.

According to this UN committee, the slave trade might have ended, but it still looms over contemporary laws, policies, and institutions. As a result, everything about Western society is inherently racist. According to the document, modern manifestations of this racist system “include racial profiling and the disproportionate use of force by law enforcement officials; racial disparities in criminal justice systems; and discriminatory laws, policies and institutional practices affecting access to housing, education, employment and health care.”

The documents’ authors claim:

Despite formal legal reforms, racialized violence, stereotyping and structural barriers continue to constrain, inter alia, educational attainment, economic mobility, health outcomes and environmental safety, producing enduring intergenerational disparities.

Structural Implementation

So, action must be taken. The UN Committee “recommends that structural measures be implemented as a matter of policy, thereby recognizing collective harms, even when harms to a specific individual have not been established.” This should include “compensation, restitution and other forms of satisfaction.” It repeats this point several times. And every time it does, it adds another layer of nonsense. The document also says that people may “seek reparations through restitution, compensation, cessation, guarantees of non-repetition, and satisfaction, including acknowledgement of responsibility and apologies.”

The committee also calls for “equality” in politics and the criminalization of speech that offends its version of history. Governments should “condemn and criminalize racist hate speech and the dissemination of theories of racial superiority,” say the authors.

Guilt by Association

What about the countries that weren’t involved in that slave trade? (Conveniently, there is no mention of the African accomplices who participated in the European slave trade.) It doesn’t matter. Everybody needs to pay up. The authors explain why:

While some States bear direct responsibility for trafficking in enslaved Africans and racialized transatlantic chattel slavery others may have benefited from, facilitated, or contributed to sustaining the global economic and racial structures that emerged from these systems. At the same time, there are some States that neither engaged in nor benefited from these practices. Notwithstanding this distinction, all States have a responsibility to support reparatory justice for the legacies of these historical injustices given their enduring global impacts.

There is no excuse for what happened. That includes the norms of the era. “By recognizing the persistence of systemic racism and its roots in historical slavery,” the document says, “the Committee considers that the States Parties should take action today … regardless of the legal framework applicable at the time of the historical acts.”

Keep reading

	freemattpodcast on Trump Admin Weighs Emergency P…
	freemattpodcast on Muslim-Majority Turkey Detains…
	Bigus Macus on DOJ Seizes Over $560,000 in Cr…
	Study: Homeschool Ki… on Study: Homeschool Kids Outperf…
	HP McLovincraft on New design!

Federal agents have arrested Los Angeles-based leftist podcaster Benjamin Azariah Southworth at his Westlake home Thursday on a grand jury indictment charging him with threatening to kill President Donald Trump, cyberstalking, and making harassing interstate telephone calls.

Bold Claims, Bold Demands

Structural Implementation

Guilt by Association