View Post

CNN’s Oliver Darcy Suggests The Next Step In Leftist Authoritarian Censorship

In Standard by Red StateLeave a Comment

This post was originally published on this site

In the wake of the pro-Trump riots at the U.S. Capitol  building and the wave of social media censorship that followed, it appears that some on the left seek to use the events to push further towards leftist authoritarianism. Predictably, the activist media seems to be firmly on board with the idea.

CNN media activist Oliver Darcy weighed in on the idea in a piece he wrote for the alleged news outlet’s “Reliable Sources” newsletter.

“We regularly discuss what the Big Tech companies have done to poison the public conversation by providing large platforms to bad-faith actors who lie, mislead, and promote conspiracy theories. But what about TV companies that provide platforms to networks such as Newsmax, One America News — and, yes, Fox News?” he wrote.

That’s right, folks. Oliver Darcy is now pushing for cable companies to squelch content from television news outlets expressing ideas that hurt his feelings. He put forth the ridiculous notion that not only should entire networks be held responsible for the opinions of their anchors, but the cable companies that host them should also be accountable.

In his propaganda piece, Darcy went on to suggest asking cable ccompanies about their practices and “if they have any regret over carrying right-wing channels that were in many ways partly responsible for what took place in our nation’s capital this week.”

Only one cable provider was willing to humor Darcy’s foolishness. CenturyLink told him that it is committed to providing “a variety of broadcast channels covering thousands of topics” and that it did not “endorse specific media or outlets.”

As you might imagine, this wasn’t good enough for Darcy, who claimed that the company was dodging his question.

But the problem with Darcy’s bloviating is the fact that he works for a left-wing activist operation masquerading as a journalistic outlet. His network peddles in the same kind of propaganda of which he accuses networks like Fox News or Newsmax.

CNN was the activist media outlet responsible for the Covington Kids hoax, which could have ruined the lives of high school students who happened to have the wrong political beliefs, according to the left. The network also promoted the Charlottesville “fine people” hoax to fool its audience into believing that President Trump complimented white supremacists. They were one of the primary entities pushing the Russia collusion hoax as well.

If Darcy truly cared about the spread of disinformation, he would be checking his own network and others like it. He would acknowledge that left-leaning organizations have been deliberately pushing various falsehoods about the president and his supporters for four years.

But, Oliver Darcy is not a journalist. He is a media activist. There is a distinct difference between the two, isn’t there? Yet, we can still give him points for trying.

Let me know what you think in the comments below!

Follow me on Twitter and Parler

View Post


In Standard by spike55Leave a Comment

John Eastman is one of the nation’s leading Constitutional Law experts and is representing President Trump’s case in court regarding all the voting irregularities in the election. In this interview, Eastman clears up the media lies, misconceptions, irresponsible and sloppy reporting about the cases he has brought in all of the key swing states.

If you think there was no stolen election, or, if you think Trump lost 60 court cases, or, basically if you believe what CNN and the MSM have been saying about how there was “no mass election cheating”, you need to watch this video because John Eastman is the President’s lawyer in court, arguing the cases, and gathering the evidence. SHARE THIS VIDEO.

View Post

If You’re Defending Big Tech’s Partisan Purge, You are the Problem

In Standard by Red StateLeave a Comment

This post was originally published on this site

While those of that are fortunate enough to never open Twitter may not be aware of it, the social media platform is currently going through the largest purge in recent history. Following the Capitol Hill riot, conservative accounts started to see their follower counts drop precipitously. At first, because virtue signaling is a favorite past-time among the right-wing commentariat, some blamed followers leaving because they spoke out against the riot. I figured out pretty quickly that such wasn’t the case.

Now, it’s clear it wasn’t just bots being cleared out. President Trump was banned shortly after, and major accounts have disappeared since then, including quality users like Techno Frog, whose great sin was being one of the most well sourced exposers of the Russian collusion hoax.

In other words, this a coordinated purge of legitimate accounts that clearly didn’t break the terms of service. Facebook is doing the same thing, with Dan Bongino being hit as well on Friday. Social media aren’t just clearing out “violent” accounts. They are actively erasing information they deem unacceptable for public debate. By getting rid of Techno Frog, for example, years of extensive research and evidence has been wiped out.

And just in case anyone wants to claim the purging is natural, it’s not.

Unfortunately, at a time when you’d expect everyone to be in agreement that this is wrong and a direct suppression of speech, some on the right continue to be willing lapdogs for big tech.

This is not Twitter making a business decision. For one, Trump’s influence on the platform would have continued to bring in lots of money for the social media giant’s coffers. The argument being made that this was just a dry, non-partisan decision is obviously nonsense. That truth is bolstered by the fact that it isn’t just Trump who has been banned. But for a small segment of the right, continually bending the knee to big business always takes priority over everything else.

One of the biggest mistakes the conservative movement has made is assuming that morality can be completely removed from the market and that nothing bad will happen. That doesn’t mean that the government has to enforce said morality, but it does mean that you aren’t required to pretend these massive corporations are somehow superior to the peons and that their machinations are always pure and acceptable. Twitter is a garbage company that is using their influence to quash free speech. That deserves condemnation, not excuse-making.

Moving on, there’s also this, which makes no sense whatsoever.

So let me get this straight. We are getting a taste of what Twitter would be like without Section 230 while Section 230 is still in effect? Does that make sense to anyone? I mean, if we are “getting a taste” right now, then what’s the point of Section 230 in the first place? If Twitter can willfully suppress speech and ban people based on political persuasion, then the only thing Section 230 is good for is ensuring that no one can sue Twitter in response. That seems like a rather bad deal for the public, doesn’t it? Social media companies want the protections of Section 230 while they spit on the spirit of the statute, which is to maintain some consistent standard of neutrality in being a public platform.

To be frank, anyone still defending big tech is part of the problem. You are going to “muh private company” yourself until every semblance of freedom is lost on these monopolistic “public squares.” And while some may be naive enough to think the ban monster isn’t coming for them, the next four years are going to get worse. Twitter, Facebook, etc. have no fear anymore. Trump is gone. The GOP lost the Senate and no longer control the committees. It’s a free for all, and everyone except those who are in hock with social media monetarily (i.e. The Dispatch crew) are vulnerable. Wake up or suffer the consequences.

(Please follow me on Twitter to fight back against the purge…@bonchieredstate)

View Post


In Standard by spike55Leave a Comment

This is the intro to War Room: Pandemic on Real America’s Voice.

I want to make a couple of points about this introduction.

First, whether you believe the Presidential election was fairly conducted or whether you believe it was stolen, it is simply un-American to not have the conversation allowing both sides of the argument to air their points of view.

It seems to me that working to silence dissenting opinions from the official results, constitutes a fascistic oppression of freedom of political speech.  In the interest of free expression, it is hardly relevant which side is speaking the truth because it is only through freedom of expression can we settle the issue.  Suppressing that expression does not settle the issue and only stokes more resentment.

As for the media’s contention that President Trump incited insurrection, there is simply no evidence of this.  In fact, the evidence points 180 degrees the other way, toward peaceful demonstrations.

The media has been totally and utterly irresponsible in the way they have reported during the Trump Presidency right throughout his entire term in office.  They have stoked anger.  They have dismissed that half of the country supporting the President.  They have dismissed their concerns routinely.  And now, they seem to think after four years of self-discrediting coverage, that the public will abandon their support of the only person in our national political experience who listened to and acted on their concerns?  I think not.

View Post


In Standard by spike55Leave a Comment

Remember when the news media saw virtue in the torching and looting of cities all across the country? What happened to change their minds? Is there any better example of their outrageous and self discrediting double standard than their rhetoric today against the outgoing President?

View Post

Beijing Warns US Will Pay ‘Heavy Price’ if UN Ambassador Goes to Taiwan

In Standard by Americas VoiceLeave a Comment

This post was originally published on this site


The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is hoping to dictate how American diplomats behave as it relates to Taiwan.  The outgoing Trump Administration should tell them to go to hell.  The incoming Biden Administration will subordinate America and American interests to their masters in the CCP soon enough.  Hopefully, at that time, the American People will be able to discern through all the censorship and propaganda from organizations every bit as controlled by the CCP, that they made a fatal error allowing Biden and his traitorous cronies of Chinese collaborators to get their hands on the levers of power.  In the meantime, inform yourselves by identifying those corporations that are heavily dependent on access to the Chinese market.  Companies like Apple, Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon, Comcast, Disney, Time Warner, and many others.  You will notice their corporate policies are aligned with the policies of the CCP.  Every American of conscience should do whatever they can to decouple from supporting as many of those companies as possible.  –Admin, GVM

China on Thursday threatened that the United States would pay a “heavy price” if its United Nations Ambassador Kelly Craft kept plans announced by the State Department to travel to Taiwan next week.

“The United States will pay a heavy price for its wrong action,” a statement from the Chinese mission to the UN said.

“China strongly urges the United States to stop its crazy provocation, stop creating new difficulties for China-U.S. relations and the two countries’ cooperation in the United Nations, and stop going further on the wrong path.”

China “firmly opposes” the visit and demands the US cancel its plans, the statement added, reiterating Beijing’s one-China policy that maintains Taiwan is a province of the nation.

The American UN mission said Thursday evening that Craft would be in Taipei from January 13 to 15, meeting with Taiwanese officials and other members of the diplomatic community.

“During her trip, the Ambassador will reinforce the U.S. government’s strong and ongoing support for Taiwan’s international space,” the American statement said.

Craft is scheduled to speak at the Institute of Diplomacy and International Affairs on Jan. 14, “on Taiwan’s impressive contributions to the global community and the importance of Taiwan’s meaningful and expanded participation in international organizations,” according to the statement.

Chinese state news agency Xinhua had also criticized the trip earlier in the day, saying a U.S. ambassador’s presence in Taiwan would violate Chinese sovereignty.

Administration officials under President Donald Trump already visited Taiwan last year, despite opposition from Beijing, amid U.S.-Chinese tensions over trade, security and human rights.

Original Article

View Post

CNN’s Cuomo Lets The Mask Slip, Declares “We Won” in Georgia

In Standard by National PulseLeave a Comment

This post was originally published on this site

During CNN’s coverage of the Georgia special election, host Chris Cuomo boasted “we won” in response to Democratic candidates appearing to pull ahead in the race.

The comments – serving as the latest example of CNN’s left-wing bias – were also premature, as not all ballots had been counted and neither Republican candidate had conceded.

Cuomo and co-host Don Lemon were giddy at the prospect of Democratic victories, laughing and singing as they covered the race.

After Cuomo insisted the election could be “the night that the light went out in Georgia” for Republicans, he insisted “we won”:

We have a long way to go, counting could take some time. I do not expect it to be called tonight, but we will be going through. But already, we know on the numbers that we have, we won, democracy won. 

View Post

Explaining the Twelfth Amendment for Those in the Media Who Seem to Be Reading Impaired

In Standard by Red StateLeave a Comment

This post was originally published on this site

I have already largely completed an article addressing the question of what Vice President Mike Pence might do in an alternative universe under a certain set of hypothetical circumstances on January 6.

But I’ve grown weary from reading articles from online pundits that purport to tell everyone what the Congress is going to do, can do, won’t do, can’t do on Wednesday when it meets in Joint Session.

So, before my other article hits the presses, I’m taking a step back and going through — you know — what is actually WRITTEN in the Twelfth Amendment about counting electoral votes.

The Twelfth Amendment was adopted in June 1804 — ahead of the Presidential election of 1804 — and replaced the provision regarding the function of the Electoral College that was set forth in Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution as originally drafted.

The purpose of the Amendment was to address the extraordinarily close outcomes of the Presidential election in 1796 and 1800.  The process set forth in the Constitution had resulted in the election of a President and Vice President from different political parties in 1796 — which turned out to be problematic since the one-party was pro-British and the other was pro-French in the armed hostilities between the two countries at the time.

In 1800, a tie in the Electoral College vote led to 36 ballots in the House of Representatives before it finally elected Thomas Jefferson over Aaron Burr — both from the Democrat-Republican Party. Both had received the same number of Electoral Votes since under the original system each elector cast 2 votes without distinguishing between a vote for President and a vote for Vice President.

The Twelfth Amendment was passed to remedy the deficiencies of the original Electoral College as they had been revealed in the first two times it was used to determine a contested election — George Washington having been elected twice without opposition.

Now that we know “why” we have a Twelfth Amendment, let’s set aside the various idiot punditocracy pronouncements about what happens by ….. let’s say ….. READING THE TEXT!!

I’m going to break it down here in the individual component parts revealed by the text (I’ve redacted some of the language not necessary to understand the process):

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President,

The Electors shall meet in their states and vote.  That has already taken place as the date for the meeting of the Electoral College is set by statute. This year it was December 14, 2020.

they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President,

Each elector casts two ballots, one each for President and Vice-President. They have already done that.

and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

See note above.

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The President of the Senate is the Vice President of the United States. Mike Pence:  “Hey Nancy, if you are done stabbing AOC in the back, can you pass me the letter opener?”

“And the votes shall be counted” — The VP’s eyes dart around the Chamber as he wonders “Who is “The Counter“.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed;

Wait — what about the Congressional “certification” and blessing with Holy Water by Barack Obama while held in the arms of the Ladies of “The View?”  Doesn’t all that have to happen before Joe Biden is crowned?


and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.

So, here is the real constitutional “rub” from the language.  What exactly is meant by the phrase “a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed”?

Does that mean that because every state has transmitted a list of votes by electors that all 538 electors have been “appointed”?  Or is there any basis by which anyone can determine that some states’ electors were not “appointed”?   Who decides?

But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

In this circumstance, there would be 50 votes cast — one by each state — and it takes 26 votes to win.  A quorum necessary to conduct the vote shall be constituted by the presence of a member from two-thirds of the states — or 34.

All the stuff you are reading about “objections,” and debates on objections and votes on objections — which I’ll cover more in my next article — derives from a statute passed by Congress in 1887, the “Electoral Vote Act.”

There is a strong argument that the EVA is actually unconstitutional as it adds details and procedures to the process set forth in the Twelfth Amendment — which is part of the Constitution. You can’t amend the Constitution through legislation as that deprives the State Legislatures of their role in participating in the Amendment process. Before an Amendment can be adopted, three-fourths of all State Legislatures must approve.

Congress critters are going to do what they are going to do come Wednesday.  But describing what they do as a constitutional duty, or a certification, or a validation, or an endorsement of what took place in the individual states on November 3 and thereafter is all nonsense and bloviating by folks who do not understand the plain and simple language of the Constitution.

The lists of votes were sealed and transmitted from the States to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the attention of the President of the Senate.

The Amendment directs that he open them and they be counted.

Beyond that …..

Stay tuned.

View Post

Porn star Aria Lee serving as own lawyer in $10M lawsuit

In Standard by NY PostLeave a Comment

This post was originally published on this site

Porn star Aria Lee is representing herself in court against a $10 million defamation suit filed by adult film director Craven Moorehead, Page Six has learned.

Lee is serving as her own attorney in the case, and has filed court documents in LA Superior Court denying the claims in Moorehead’s suit against her.

Not only that, she’s going up against a powerhouse lawyer.

Page Six previously reported that Moorehead filed the eight-figure suit against Lee in September, after she alleged on social media, and in an interview with Adult Video News, that he sexually assaulted her twice last year. She claimed the assaults took place behind-the-scenes on an X-rated film set, and in Moorehead’s car months later.

Moorehead then vehemently denied the allegations in court documents, and blasted Lee’s claims as “false, malicious, defamatory and hurtful.” He called her version of the events, “outlandish, outright fabrications.”

Lee has now denied Moorehead’s allegations in her own court filing this month, obtained by Page Six. The documents — which state Lee’s defense is “in pro per” (legalese for representing herself) — allege that Moorehead’s complaint “fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action” against her, and also alleges that her “purported statements were true and thus a defense” to his legal action.

The papers also allege that Moorehead’s side has “waived any claim they have,” without going into further detail, and that Moorehead’s suit failed to name the plaintiff or defendant by their real name.

An initial hearing in the case is scheduled for Feb. 21, court records show.

According to a Twitter bio, Lee was an AVN Best New Starlet and Best Ass nominee in 2020. Moorehead was inducted into the AVN Hall of Fame in 2015, and has 377 X-rated films under his belt as director, according to IMDB.

He’s being repped in the case by Sergio Castaneda in LA, and NYC power lawyer Robert Hantman — who told us when we reached out for comment, “If a porn star can be a lawyer why not a lawyer being a porn star!” (He added he’s not considering a change of profession.)

Lee did not return an email seeking comment.