Blessings on you and your family from all the Huckabee staff! Thank you for subscribing and I hope you enjoy today’s newsletter.
DAILY BIBLE VERSE
105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Psalm 119:105 KJV
Twitter had to twist Trump's meaning to ban him --- and they did
When Elon Musk was asked what his pronouns were, he had a ready answer: “Prosecute/Fauci.” I loved it, and I’ll bet you did, too, but former CIA Director John Brennan was not amused. (The White House wasn’t, either, but I digress.)
Brennan fatuously tweeted that there needed to be a way to “prevent” people like Musk from being “politically destructive.” Note that Brennan’s tweet, though it strongly implies that Musk should be censored, was NOT censored by Musk. No, Brennan was allowed to reveal just what an authoritarian he is.
Brennan’s tweet said, “Good people in democracies need a more effective way to prevent attention-craving, emotionally immature, & highly devious individuals, esp those of means, from being socially, culturally and politically destructive.”
Brennan also said to Musk, “Dr. Fauci is a national hero who will be remembered for generations to come for his innate goodness & many contributions to public health. Despite your business success, you will be remembered most for fueling public hate & divisions. You may have money, but you have no class.”
Well, there’s a classless thing to say. The only way it would even make sense is if Brennan were looking in a mirror when he said it. If I were Musk, and Brennan said that to me, I’d have to respond, “I’m rubber, you’re glue; whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.” Maybe a tad immature, but true as can be, except for the money part, of course. Musk does have a lot more money.
Who’s the devious one? The one shining the light of transparency on the insidious political agenda of a private corporation and its relationship with shady government agencies, or the former head of one of those very agencies, someone who helped perpetuate the Russia Hoax? I’d say it’s the latter.
As Nick Arama from REDSTATE points out, Brennan was one of those 51 former intel officials who signed that now-infamous letter saying, with no evidence, that the Hunter Biden laptop story had the “classic earmarks” of “Russian disinformation.” Brennan himself interfered with an election; the letter he signed was misinformation.
And we see from Brennan’s tweet that he has no understanding of how the First Amendment is supposed to work –- either that, or he just doesn’t care and wants to subvert the Constitution when it suits him. He wants to “prevent” Musk from speaking? Well, isn’t that special –- Brennan would’ve fit right in at the “old” Twitter, wouldn’t he? Maybe he’d be just as comfortable at at the upper echelon of Chinese social media. I understand that’s how the CCP operates.
If we really did censor all the blowhards who spout opinions dangerous to democracy, Brennan would be long gone.
Elon knows who/what he’s dealing with, and tweeted to Brennan, “Your house is glass.”
The folks in Twitter’s ivory tower were just as eager as Brennan to “prevent” Trump from speaking, whether he violated policy or not. And now, thanks to the newest release of internal documents by independent journalist Bari Weiss, we know they had some pretty intense conversations about that.
See what you think about these Trump tweets. On January 8, 2021, Trump’s last day on Twitter before he was banned, he sent two tweets, the first of which said, “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” The second tweet simply said, “To all those who have asked, I will not be going to the inauguration on January 20th.
Pretty innocuous, huh? And the staffers on Twitter’s “safety team,” though they clearly wanted to ban him, agreed that the first one did NOT contain “clear or coded incitement” and the second one was a “clear no vio [violation].” One staffer (name redacted) wrote, “I think we’d have a hard time saying this was incitement. It’s pretty clear he’s saying the ‘American Patriots’ are the ones who voted for him and not the terrorists (we can call them that, right?) from Wednesday.”
Another staffer agreed: “Don’t see the incitement angle here.” As Bari Weiss, reports, “key staffers said that Trump had not incited violence --- not even in a ‘coded’ way.”
Obviously, though, the Chief Censor (I’m being facetious, but that’s really what she was). Vijaya Gadde, had decided to do it no matter what. As Weiss reports, Gadde said that while the first tweet was “not a rule violation on its face,” it could possibly have been posted “as coded incitement to further violence.” So that was her angle: Trump was talking in CODE. Read the exchange here, and it’s obvious Gadde is reaching to find some way to ban the President.
This sequence of internal communications surrounding the ban is a must-read. You can see that the team finally has to twist the meaning of the term “American Patriots” to perhaps be referring to the rioters.
This is incredible. As Bari Weiss quotes, the team came to “view him as the leader of a terrorist group responsible for violence/deaths comparable to Christchurch leader or Hitler and on the basis of the totality of his tweets, he should be de-platformed.”
To ban him, they distorted his words and made stuff up so they could say he’d violated their “Glorification of Violence” policy (!!!). Read this, and you will become very, very angry, though for some reason I feel the need to mention that I don’t want to see any violence arise out of your anger, even though I know you know that I don’t want that.
After Trump was banned, leaders of other democracies raised alarms, with French President Emmanuel Macron telling an audience he “didn’t want to live in a democracy where the key decisions” were made by private players. “I want it to be decided by a law voted by your representative, or by regulation, governance, democratically discussed and approved by democratic leaders.”
Ironically, one Twitter staffer (who apparently was ignored) had said this: “Maybe because I am from China, I deeply understand how censorship can destroy the public conversation.”
So, tell me again, WHO’S the real threat to democracy?
The “Twitter Files” have revealed that it wasn’t just internal pressure at Twitter that got Trump banned. Michael Shellenberger reports that even Michelle Obama was angling for this. Groups such as the Anti-Defamation League applied pressure as well. The day before Trump was permanently banned, Michelle posted a lengthy statement to Twitter.
It starts out with a distortion: “Seeing the gulf between the responses between yesterday’s riot and this summer’s peaceful protests [editorial aside !!!] and the larger movement of racial justice is so painful.” She goes on to say that we need to “come to grips with the reality that millions voted for a man so obviously willing to burn our democracy down for his own ego.”
Oh, it goes on and gets worse. “And if we have any hope of improving this nation, she says, “now is the time for swift and serious consequences for the failure of leadership that led to yesterday’s shame.”
Oh, would that be the leadership shown by the Speaker of the House when she turned down Trump’s offer of 20,000 National Guard troops?
Yesterday, we talked about the numerous ex-FBI and -CIA officials who, after Trump became President, were hired in senior management positions at Twitter and have now been scrubbing their LinkedIn accounts in order to lay low. Here’s a report that offers much more detail about this, including a long list of specific individuals that Elon Musk has no doubt reviewed. It also tells of the shocking lack of security for the data on employees’ work computers. According to one whistleblower’s report, “Twitter employees were repeatedly found to be intentionally installing spyware on their work computers at the request of external organizations.” What?
Finally, as Sean Hannity reports, those who have written about Hunter Biden (uh-oh) should brace themselves for attack, as his attorneys and/or advisers have no doubt decided that an aggressive stance is the way to go. According to the WASHINGTON POST, they have created the equivalent of a “political War Room” to smear --- maybe even sue – members of Congress, the media, and former business associates (think Tony Bobulinksi) who dare bring up his activities.
Law professor Jonathan Turley pointed out on the show how unusual it is for this sort of organized legal strategy to be carried out publicly. WAPO, cooperatively, laid it all out and even named the two chief witnesses who contradict the Bidens, as a way perhaps to intimidate them, especially Bobulinksi. It may be that they’re preparing defamation lawsuits against those who even cover the story. Turley said this “scorched-earth” approach might be all they have, because “there’s not a lot of ground left for them to fight on.” Biden’s repeated statement that he had “no knowledge, no discussions” with Hunter or his associates about their business “appears clearly and unequivocally false.”
Hannity notes that Hunter has never denied the authenticity of the laptop –- how can he? –- or any reporting and has ignored countless invitations to come on the air for as much time as he wants.
This morning, the Labor Department reported that the consumer price index rose 0.1% in November for a rate of 7.1% inflation from one year before. It’s mostly due to a drop in gas prices. That’s still not a decrease in inflation, but it’s less than the 7.3% that experts had predicted, so optimists hope it’s a positive enough sign that the Fed will reduce its interest rate hikes to try to curb inflation.
But problems remain, like the fact that the core inflation rate was "only" 6% (that’s inflation minus the “volatile” categories, like food and electricity, which were respectively up by 12% and 14% on an annual basis.) That’s still three times higher than the Fed’s target rate of 2%.
I suppose that these days, it’s understandable that we take it as good news when things are only three times as bad as they were when the Democrats took over.
The final House race has at last been called, with a mandatory recount in Colorado showing that Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert has been reelected by 546 votes. That means the Republicans will hold a 222 vote majority in the House to the Democrats’ 213. Or as Nancy Pelosi would call that, an overwhelming mandate to enact their agenda.
Joe Biden did this
Remember, if you don’t want to be accused of being a racist, xenophobe, etc., you mustn't say that the US is under invasion on our Southern border. But it’s hard to think of another word that describes it when up to 2400 foreign nationals come rushing illegally across the border into one American city in just one day.
The poor liberals of Martha’s Vineyard who were so discombobulated and outraged when 50 illegal immigrants were bused to them from Texas should pay a visit to El Paso and see what that town is forced to endure, thanks to the policies of the President they spent so much money to elect. Of course, that will never happen because even Biden himself refuses to visit the border to gaze upon the intolerable humanitarian and national security disaster he created by reversing every successful border security policy. He claims he has “more important things to do,” like going to Delaware 59 times to ride bicycles and eat ice cream.
Maybe Texas should try sending 2400 illegal migrants a day to his favorite ice cream shop in Delaware, and that might get his attention. Of course, the biggest joke in all of this is the idea that Biden’s White House “has a plan” to deal with illegal immigration, or that it even wants to solve this problem which it deliberately created. Expecting Biden to do anything to stop illegal immigration is like expecting McDonald’s to launch a petition to ban hamburgers.
Comedian Dave Chappelle brought Elon Musk out on stage during a show in San Francisco, and some audience members booed him. Question: If you hate free speech, what are you doing at a Dave Chapelle show?
A journalism 101 lesson for Reuters
If the media still wonder why a recent Pew survey showed such low levels of public trust in them, (aside from the fact that they’re completely ignoring the revelations from Twitter of their collusion with government to censor news, silence citizens and rig an election), then consider this: a major outlet like Reuters can report on Cuba’s communist government arresting refugees who were willing to risk their lives to flee that island prison on a raft and say the government “rescued” them. Is that because they didn’t just kill them (this time)?
Here’s a journalism 101 lesson for Reuters: when the way you report news is indistinguishable from propaganda put out by Cuba’s communist dictatorship, you’re doing journalism wrong.
I Just Wanted to Say
Thank you for reading my newsletter.