"but X users are sharing it like they just uncovered the Colonel’s secret blend of 11 herbs and spices." OMG! A serious subject to be sure, but could not stop laughing!
Honestly, what I am more concerned about is the fact that an Adam Schiff can go in front of the MSM and make a jillion wild claims about Trump-Russia Collusion out in the open, and then, as head of the House Intel Committee, go into closed Congressional Hearings and claim he had no evidence of such. Unbelievable how this was and is seemingly still allowed.
Yes, how can the people in congress, senators, representatives stand up and state absolute lies without any evidence or accountability for their words?
That is the most comprehensive overview I have ever read of the corruption on the left. He has connected ALL the dots. He deserves many more subscribers than he has.
I feel like legislators routine lying flows, somehow, out of our justice system's toleration of law enforcement's use of lying as a means justifying an end. Would democracy topple if police abandoned lying?
A boss once told me that companies need LOTS of people to get their stuff done; the bigger they are the more they need, but the number of GOOD people and even adequate people is strictly limited and at some point they have to lower standards to get enough people. I guess that could be said of any large organization.
Ahh... how so very convenient. Who knew this was coming? The death of a free speech advocate triggers calls for less free speech.
Meanwhile, does anyone else find it just a bit odd that there is a video of his wife crying and talking to her husband's dead body in a casket but only showing their hands? Call me crazy, but the last thing I want and think while I'm grieving is to post my grief on social media.
Yes, I also found that video very strange. And who was filming that? 28 years ago I lost my husband to a sudden fatal heart attack, and I was such an emotional wreck I couldn't even greet people at his funeral.
Exactly. The last thing I would want is to someone film me in my lowest state. It's as if they are putting on a show... That's not normal human behavior.
If you're right, we're talking ourselves into early graves... Social media is the embodiment of that great old saw, "After all is said and done, more is said than done."
I don't use social media outside of substack so I wouldn't know. Posting videos of grief is not normal though. I agree with you to an extent. The death of this world is when people lose their humanity. We are seeing that play out as people argue which team is more righteous and asking for daddy government to help. It's insane.
I don't know what on earth is "normal" when it comes to the grief of a 30-something year old woman with two babies or anyone else who loses the person they love more than anyone or anything else.
Me either, one can waste enormous amounts of time looking at it. Time that could be spent doing something dar more productive. I fear Substack is turning into a form of it.
The still picture doesn’t look right. No face. I don’t think that’s Charlie’s widow. Is there a longer video to confirm that is his wife? I don’t trust much anymore.
I too stumbled on that clip and thought it was exceedingly odd. I did recall, though, that I had put out a call asking my cousins if they had any old pics of my mom as we planned on a 'through the years' display for my mom's 80th. (all her sisters have passed). One of my cousins showed up with several shoeboxes of pictures from the 1920's and 30's and newer that had been my grandma's that mom and I had never seen before. Sadly almost none were marked but there were a few sets of pictures of people in caskets!? Mom said that since people took very few pictures back then, (too expensive) that they would take pictures of the deceased since they had not taken any recent ones when they were alive. All this to say norms change. And while the video I saw was of seemingly of Erika, it was not her page, it was some random account, which also made me wonder if it was an AI fake. But why? Who knows.
When my grandmother died, in 2000, my mother did this, which yes, frankly horrified me. When I asked her why, see said she was doing it for family members who couldn’t be with us at the time.
Ok, I guess. I still wouldn’t do it, but I understand at least.
As far as the post of the widow - we have probably all seen the post of the military widows lying by caskets or on graves.
I tend to think that they see it as a testament of love for the fallen spouse. I can understand that too. And truthfully, I expect she didn’t give a good damn that someone was taking a picture. Along the lines of sure, fine, do whatever. If she was even aware of them at the time.
Remember, she was surrounded by the people who worked with her husband and running his company. That they were probably thinking of the optics from that point. You know, no such thing as bad publicity…
I once saw a grieving older woman try to get into the casket with her husband. She was Italian and I was told that was not uncommon. With everything else going wrong in this country, why would anyone criticize a woman grieving. FTLOG, people.
Yes, taking pictures of the deceased in their caskets was done as far back as the Civil War. My husband had numerous pictures of deceased aunts, uncles and grandparents. I don’t know if the reason you were given was the real reason, but it was a widespread practice.
I'm willing to withhold judgement in Erika Kirk's posting a video/photograph at her absolute worst. Much about deep grief is that it is irrational and many people in that condition engage in odd behavior; they create shrines in their homes; they can't even judge distances very well. It's all encompassing. Talk to anyone who's been through deep grief which actually is worse at the 6th month mark than it is in the beginning.
Yes. I’ve experienced it. I would say for two years, I had to keep reminding myself it was real and true that my daughter was gone. Every morning when I opened my eyes I had to face that reality like it was new information and the shock lingered. Right. She died. Year three I was starting to be able to manage it better. It’s year seven and I’m still “managing “ it. I have no opinion on how a person grieves . I can’t believe some of the ignorant comments made during that time
People are so willing to judge others when they have no clue about their broken hearts. And now they’re doubting that it was actually Erika. Unbelievable. They’re beginning to sound like Democrats.
A dear friend has a story almost exactly like yours. She said she couldn’t even speak until the funeral which was four days later. She could only nod or shake her head. 😢
That clip was so bizarre. Professionally done?! Oooky. Now I keep getting texts from some source regarding the Kirk legacy. Weird. Anyone else getting texts?
We had a speaker from TPUSA at my R womens club today and she was asked about text messages and emails asking for money that seem to be from TPUSA or 'for Kirk's family'. She said they have NEVER fundraised that way and to delete/block. I did too but knew it was a scam. Scum trying to make a buck.
While I feel terrible for Erika Kirk and the rest of the family, I also thought that video was weird and in pretty poor taste. Not sure who filmed it but it looks like it was released with her approval, and maybe she’s just that level headed and focused, maybe she and Charlie had long talks about how to handle things if the worst should happen, but even so... weird. I would never want that moment documented.
You really believe that? Did you catch this one put out two days after she allegedly witnessed the brutal killing of her husband and the father of her two little children? https://x.com/MattersInformed/status/1966795481264148658
None of this is anywhere near normal, unless you're already a robot of sorts.
Last Wednesday was the death of free speech. And no, I do not find Erika Kirk's grieving at all odd, especially when those who hated Kirk are doing and saying things that deserve our scorn more than she does.
I don’t want the government passing propaganda laws. 100%. But the government deliberately lies. It should be stopped from promoting lies. Not the people.
And the MSM deliberately lies. We all know that. How to stop it? Make it so they can be sued for promoting false narratives. Van Jones was at a coffee cart buying something and someone asked him gushingly (fake too because the gusher knew Van lied) ‘have we got him finally? Is Trump going down?’ Van said ‘No it is a big nothing burger.’ When asked why CNN was frothing at the mouth promoting it Jones said ‘Rating. We are way up in viewership. That’s all.’ So Van Jones admitted they lied to their viewers for ratings. And lied while attempting to topple a government. That has to be stopped. CNN should lose its license.
And what about her lengthy 'presentation'? or propaganda laden eulogy? Or whatever it was two days after the "killing?" Catch that truly bizarre and somewhat creepy video? I dove in yesterday and I'm heavily leaning toward staged event already and it's mainly because of the close analysis of a blown up version of the video of the shooting. Linked in this piece if you're interested: https://miri.substack.com/p/his-story-her-story-and-the-truth?r=kuj0w&triedRedirect=true
Thanks Bradley! I got chastised in this substack for sharing Miri's first post about Kirk. I think Miri is spot on as always! I really do think she's on a completely different level when it comes to analyzing current events.
Thanks Bradley! I got chastised in this substack for sharing Miri's first post about Kirk. I think Miri is spot on as always! I really do think she's on a completely different level when it comes to analyzing current events.
Thanks Bradley! I got chastised in this substack for sharing Miri's first post about Kirk. I think Miri is spot on as always! I really do think she's on a completely different level when it comes to analyzing current events.
Thanks Bradley! I got chastised in this substack for sharing Miri's first post about Kirk. I think Miri is spot on as always! I really do think she's on a completely different level when it comes to analyzing current events.
Thanks Bradley! I got chastised in this substack for sharing Miri's first post about Kirk. I think Miri is spot on as always! I really do think she's on a completely different level when it comes to analyzing current events.
I find the idea of this being revived a terrifying one, because of the fact that administrations would have to define "propaganda," which as far as I can see it means that if we continue to flip back and forth from R to D presidents, we'd have a revolving door of different viewpoints being prosecuted and then pardoned.
The fact that Covid truths continue were defined as conspiracy and propaganda and used to cancel people was bad enough without it being official policy.
And the public outcry would be DEAFENING.
Wouldn't this basically open the door for us to have a bunch of Graham Linehans here?
Most of them are in line on this together, and they're the puppets. There are some exceptions on the right, but still seemingly none on the left with regard to Congress and other high profile leaders.
I thought the young red-head said the law was to separate “opinion” from fact? Most “news presenters” don’t have a clue. For the record: government should not define propaganda, neither should schools or medicos. Keep praying and head on a swivel. It’s nuts “out there”. ✌🏼🫶🕯️
"Love?" (It's complicated...) I can tell that a long time ago I concluded, based on my observations about the number and levels of distractions available to us that "If your argument won't fit on a bumper sticker, it doesn't stand a chance."
I am simultaneously scared to death of this going through, (think freedom of speech gone awry), and also entirely sick of the hate and untruth trolling the internet. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I don't know that this bill, the way it sits right now, is not the answer. And I truthfully don't know what the answer is.
The answer is to turn off your phone, shut down your browser and stop seeing the "trolling" and "hate". As individuals we can control how much of this garbage we consume. No one else should be attempting to control it.
While I somewhat agree with you, the answer isn't to cut yourself off from everything. That's almost impossible. I say almost because i have done it before for a year and it was pretty freaking glorious. But I don't trust the media, so I get my news from people like Jenny. To shut myself off from that would be absurd.
Yes, to elaborate, I'm not advocating cutting yourself off, just adjusting how much you want to see. I watch a lot to stay informed of what others are seeing. When it gets overwhelming then I take a break.
I know that I don't want anyone *else* in charge of what I see and what I don't see. That's for me to determine (and one reason I like MeWe more than any other social media).
But much of the most heinous lies over the past decade were initially spread by the mainstream news. The internet and influencers pick it up, and for years trusted they were reposting facts unaware the MSM was actually captured by political tyrants. It really did start with the morning and evening news. So we have to cut ourselves off from the news as an answer? I agree with you that we need to all step back from the amount of time we are engrossed on the internet, and get away from exposure to the hate, but I don’t think that would have been an effective answer to what actually happened the past decade.
I also agree that it’s a slippery slope tinkering with speech. However, they had to create that Modernization act to do what they wanted to do to us in the first place - so that tells me it wasn’t effective to lie to us until they modified the original act, and it was a necessary fence that had previously safeguarded us. It didn’t infringe on our free speech before.
But yeah, Democrats will bastardize anything to take away our rights c
How about we just repeal the whole damn thing and not lie overseas too? I don’t know enough about foreign affairs to know if spreading propaganda is ever necessary. I think spreading the truth is more effective personally. Why were we meddling that way where we felt spreading lies in other countries was “American”?
How it is written is everything, and it has to be limited to the government agencies, institutions, representatives, and the national news media that people rely on for the actual truth, not reach social influencers who are basically the common citizen discussing what these leaders and institutions have said and how. The only reason X has the breaking news is because they had to expose the lies after the MSM became rabid dogs. They had to cover “the rest of the story” when the media purposefully ignored it - because with that act they can. But most of what I see and read on there as well as here is discussing of what was already reported, or what was purposefully ignored. Frankly an individual, non-government affiliated citizen has the right to spread misinformation if they choose, but the government who risks grabbing power away from The People does not. If they sit in a seat of “Authority” (and this includes public schools,) there HAS to be fencing or they will tear up our yards as we just watched them do. Social influencers who spread lies would have natural boundaries because of the social consequences of knowingly doing it, and it would be easy to prove they have done it if we have an honest government and media who can’t.
(As you can see I’m still in the process of chewing on this from both perspectives.)
The USA isn't a travel agency. Our government shouldn't be promoting how wonderful we are, no matter whether it's true or false, across the entire world (and here in the USA).
So yes, I advocate for the government being out of the "information" business. But individuals and corporations must have the freedom to spread whatever opinions they have. It's up to the people to decide what they want to consume and what they want to ignore / reject.
Yes John, this sounds like a great and refreshing solution to me, but it will not reach the manipulated masses and it is these unaware and mostly well intentioned folks who worry and scare me.
This is a very valid concern. We are living in a wild new world full of conflict and misinformation. I'm extremely anti-censorship. If we don't want to be gagged and silenced ourselves then we must allow those with other views to also spout whatever garbage they produce.
The answer, of a sort, was provided by Mr. John Adams. In a letter to the Massachusetts Militia on October 11, 1798, he wrote:
"𝗢𝘂𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗣𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲. 𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net."
(Curious, that word "gallantry," no?) ...and HERE we all are. Are we a "moral" and "religious" People? No? Then our Constitution is inadequate to our government--and it's the BEST that's ever been; if IT can't govern us adequately, we'll fall. And it will be on us, who chose immorality and irreligiousness, with the ironic excuse of "freedom."
No I had not ...yet. NOW I have. Mr. Kirk delivered THAT, without notes. (Me? I had to look it up.) "We are no longer a Christian nation, but we still have a Christian form of government, and the two are not compatible." he said.
His understanding of the first state constitutions is correct. And that last sentence is powerful stuff. I can't think of an observation more worthy of memorizing!
This really gave me something to think about. Thank you for posting. Wish we had more governing officials like John Adams. I looked up gallantry and I am indeed curious. Definition said, “courageous behavior, especially in battle” and “polite attention or respect given by men to women”. This is puzzling; what are your thoughts?
ChatGPT gave me this interesting analysis (and let me say this is one of my favorite quotes from our Founding Fathers):
Notice that Adams is grouping gallantry with destructive passions: avarice (greed), ambition (self-aggrandizement), revenge (vengefulness). Here gallantry is not “heroic courage” in a positive sense, but rather vain display, showy recklessness, or superficial honor-seeking — behavior that looks noble but undermines civic stability.
In the 18th century, gallantry could mean “courtly ostentation” or “vain pursuit of glory” (a sense closer to “flashy bravado”). Adams is warning that if citizens or leaders chase those impulses instead of grounding themselves in morality and religion, the Constitution’s checks and balances will be powerless — like a fishing net against a whale.
David, love that you pursued it further. There was a comment from John Anthony about this and Chat gave him a different bit of very interesting information. Do u see his comment? If not, let me know and I will copy it for you
Marjorie, I ran right by it after saying it was curious... but you've caught me out. AI tried to say Adams was using it "in contrast" to the other terms, but I think that's silly. Rather, I think he meant that, like ambition, it can be too much of a good thing. Casting about for something contemporaneous to him, and this is the purest wild conjecture, I wonder if Mr. Adams might have been thinking of people who, moved by gallantry, would "vote to proclaim the Hero of Yorktown king," as a reward for his "saving the Revolution" and thus jump right back into the fire...
Yes, there are libel and slander laws on the books. I think I'd like to see lying laws too, but I don't know how, in this age where everyone "has their own 'truth'." A lot of people (most??) who create lies, or spread them, are probably guilty of being too lazy to hunt for the truth[1]. I don't want a law criminalizing laziness. Maybe if The Government would maintain an easily consulted Ministry of Truth, or plastered the walls and screens with posters and ads reminding us WHO of our masters was the ultimate arbiter of official "truth," we could all just look at each other across our once-daily gruels and understand "I think we can agree on how this happened."
[1] Which is Why we need indefatigable observers and reporters like Jenna McCarthy (who may be granted the occasional 'off' day to chase rabbits). She says "conspiracy theorist," but it's the truth she brings to the table that's better than any gruel.
I didn’t vote in today’s poll. As a First Amendment absolutist, I feel a little queasy about bringing back the Smith Act 1.0 for all the reasons you listed. It’s another way to squash freedom of speech and it’s in conflict with the First. My idea is 1. No cell phones for kids. 2. All schools and colleges and churches and even the YMCA, the NRA, local governments, and the Lions Club need to start talking today about the First and what it means and why we need it. 3. We need to rededicate the nation to the Constitution and the Declaration. Every town needs a chapter of Turning Point. An American Renaissance, if you will. 4. One last thing: stop buying stuff from those who push lies. 5. Oh, and one more thing, every school must require all students to take a course in propaganda and how to spot it.
A wonderful idea. Years ago I read that somewhere north of 85% of the population had never read the Declaration of Independence. And that's a short document. That says to me that even more people have no idea of the Constitution's content or how it works.
Agreed, and I was actually thinking of you when I added the word History.
Although not particularly an A.L. fan (EVERYONE KNOWS HE WAS A FASCIST!!! [that's supposed to be funny to people who know me from past posts]), I add "The Gettysburg Address":
If you've been following the latest trendy trend of "accelerationism" (as wicked a philosophy as satan has ever spewed), you'll know there are now people who've persuaded themselves that "there is no hope that mankind will come out of these latest troubles alive," or with lives worth living. They have--stupidly--devoted themselves to "accelerating" what they see as the "inevitable" extinction of man. They, if you will please believe it, DELIGHT in "befriending" vulnerable young people on social media, influencing them to perform debasing acts, and then BOAST about how their threats to expose them led to their eventual suicides.
Such reptilian morlocks exist.
And while it is to be hoped these sewer dwellers can be flushed out (no pun i.) and "accelerated" towards their hoped-for annihilations, meanwhile, "𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘂𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿, 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸... ...𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲, 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗵."
Sadly, one of my sisters is an accelerationist/nihilist. We can't talk about anything anymore. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is particularly appropriate. Thanks for reminding me.
The problem now Mary Ann is depending on who teaches the course....it's gonna be skewed! I know so many folks who are talking about propaganda from the right, as if the left doesn't have any.
People can have opinions about the Constitution, but the fact remains that it is quite clear on its provisions. OR, people who approve the Constitution, along with someone who disapproves of it could be paired up to teach such classes.
If you think nothing I say has any validity, don't read it. Your responses add little to the conversation. I doubt you will, but here are two conversations you could learn from:
I read your comments because they are so unreal. And I'm interested in seeing how far people will go to deny the truth. And I know that the truth wouldn't even be enough to move you.
You must be upset that over the weekend, 32,000 new requests for Turning Point chapters were sent in. I am exploring ways to get one in my community. Who knew that "Turning Point" would be such a prophetic name?
Well, let's see: George Creel and the CPI, Ida Tarbell (who is from Titusville, PA where I am from and a small note of interest, my grandmother was given Ida Tarbell's doll cradle b/c her father worked for Ida's father in his barrel making business), S.S. McClure, Harold Lasswell, Edward Bernays, and Walter Lippmann all come to mind. Creel, Lasswell, Bernays, and Lippmann, in particular, were interested in shaping public opinion (or manufacturing consent) in order to align it with government objectives since the masses were incapable of understanding . But Creel was first out of the box.
Elly is right. The internet has been full, these last few days, of idiots claiming that Charlie Kirk advocated for the stoning to death of gays, because the dying legacy media clipped him out of context and amplified it. They knew what they were doing - subtly saying that it was ok to kill him because he held abhorrent views. But he didn't advocate for any such thing - it was the media brazenly lying.
Also look at the UK this weekend. Tommy Robinson held a march that saw *well over* 500k attendees (making it the biggest protest in UK history) march "largely peacefully" through London protesting against that country's eroding freedom of speech, amongst other things. The media's take? Of course they passed it off as a "far right rally" and said that "tens of thousands" attended.
And finally - no wonder Trump loves this idea. This is exactly what the media did to him with the "fine people on both sides" lie.
So - as long as there are safeguards and opinions are still free to be published - I'm with Elly.
Are all vaccines safe for everyone? Are all vaccines effective for everyone?
I honestly don't know, but opinions I've been immersed in since 2020 suggest both answers are "No." If they are not, then built into the definition of "safe" is an assumption that a certain number, possibly arbitrary, of "negative consequences" is acceptable for the good of the herd.
9/11 was also a fact and covid was real and has Heidi has pointed out it's also a fact that vaccines are safe and effective. Jenna would be on the chopping boarding if this act were to pass and so would most of her followers.
9/11 *did* happen. The planes flew into the towers. What else went down that day...I don't know but I have my suspicions. I can write perfectly easily what my suspicions are, without reporting them as fact.
As for the Death Jabs, well they are demonstrably *not* safe and effective and I would gladly take the stand to defend that position. In fact it would be a blessing, as the authorities might then have to show us their evidence that I was wrong.
If you were to claim that building number 7 collapsed because of demolition, you'd be labeled as a propagandist pushing pleeb.
The authorities would censor you, fine you, and potentially lock you up if your facts disagreed with theirs. That's the point, Dan.
Why in the world would you ever trust the federal government to define what is propaganda and what is not when they are the main culprits of pushing out propaganda?
Again, I disagree. I could easily say that "no sensible explanation has yet been offered as to why Building 7 collapsed" or even "I have my suspicions that Building 7's collapse is not what the authorities say it is" which would be my opinion. It's quite simple...what Elly is asking for is the separation of facts v opinions.
Thanks Heidi - I'll take your resorting to calling me "stupid" to mean that you have no sensible argument to offer. And to be clear, it is the experimental gene therapy, aka Covid-19 'vaccine' that I am referring to. I did not claim that *all* vaccines are dangerous (although I am also not saying that they are not).
Dan McCarthy may have something: they/the govt. (still!) let companies sell tobacco products. They just have to carry a warning. It may be as simple as "flagging" commentary as "opinion-not-fact," thus daring any unflagged comments to be investigated for falsehoods.
In my opinion(s), simply requiring "news" sources to be labeled "nothing but our opinionated opinions" would start a move away from the widely held belief that they are driven by purehearts.
But you didn't answer my questions about vaccines! Are they or are they not safe and effective for every person? Is there an inherent assumption of an acceptable level of injury?
Climate change IS real! (It always has been.) My "proof," difficult as it is to present in this forum, is glaciation. What still needs indisputable proof is whether mankind is responsible for it, or merely a victim of larger forces. (You really would benefit from a look into the treatment that field geologist J. Harlan Bretz was accorded by virtually the entire rest of the geological establishment of his day. He was a lone voice trying to argue that the erosion of a large area of the northwest United States happened not, as then conventionally accepted, over the course of MILLIONS of years, but over the course of a few weeks. HIS is a textbook case of scientific bullying working AGAINST scientific principles. Graybeards know "if it happened even once, it can happen again.")
The government made the CDC and the CDC says they are safe.
My son's Autism, due to vaccines, means noting to them. My substack posts showing exactly how vaccines induce Autism using medical literature means nothing to them. Truth is what they say it is and if laws are made to punish anyone who doesn't speak their truth, we will be living in a world where the government tells us what to think.
Oh, okay. And Trump had a bigger crowd at his inauguration than Obama. Yeah! I remember that one too! Whatever. I hope for England's sake that was not an accurate number. Their economy is in free fall and they don't need a race war on top of everything else.
Just look at the pictures available online. Even some mainstream media outlets are admitting it was 500k+. But many reports say 1m+. Either way, it is not a "race war", it is a population asking for the migration into its country to be policed adequately, so that only legal migrants can come in. Not too much to ask!
Considering what the government can do/will do/does do to so much of what touches, I have to say, "no, I don't think this is a good idea." Also, consider what Charlie Kirk's supporters have done in the aftermath of his assassination! Rude (being extremely kind here) folks have been fired, businesses have been brought to their knees for expressing abominably rude (see previous parenthesis) opinions. I think, now there's truly a 'turning point,' that the people have it well in hand.
Banning "propaganda". Well, I don't think our government should fund producing "information" for mass consumption. Revert the CDC to quietly publishing statistics and other such information, but the government shouldn't be in the "self advertising" business.
However, the rest of us need Free Speech! So I don't care who's crazy cousin makes a Tik-Tok of some bizarre theory. That's okay, let them publish it. Freedom for private individuals, restraints on government.
I'll tell you what's so hard to believe... after being lied to so many times by our government, 911, Las Vegas 2017, COVID, Las Vegas 2025... just to remind everyone of the most notable of the lies that our government is guilty of in a relatively recent time frame... I find it unbelievable that they're telling the truth this time.
In the words of the late, great Gore Vidal... "I'm not a conspiracy theorist - I'm a conspiracy analyst."
Hey Jenna! Fellow conspiracy theorist (knower) here. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act was tucked inside the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. It was passed by the House and then Senate December 20 & 21 respectively and then signed by Obama January 2. That was fast. Why didn't anyone fight against it or report on it????? Everyone was busy looking in a different direction. Right before, December 14, Sandy Hook shooting occurred.
To abandon individual rights, including diluting the First Amendment protection of free speech, in the wake of crisis is accomplishing exactly what progressives have sought. It is during crises that we need to double down on individual rights protections.
"but X users are sharing it like they just uncovered the Colonel’s secret blend of 11 herbs and spices." OMG! A serious subject to be sure, but could not stop laughing!
Honestly, what I am more concerned about is the fact that an Adam Schiff can go in front of the MSM and make a jillion wild claims about Trump-Russia Collusion out in the open, and then, as head of the House Intel Committee, go into closed Congressional Hearings and claim he had no evidence of such. Unbelievable how this was and is seemingly still allowed.
You might enjoy this from Tiernys Real News about what could be going on with traitor Schiff.
https://tierneyrealnewsnetwork.substack.com/p/rico?utm_source=post-banner&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true
Yes, how can the people in congress, senators, representatives stand up and state absolute lies without any evidence or accountability for their words?
They are held immune from prosecution during debates. Crazy, isn’t it? I think it’s called the debates clause, or something…
That is the most comprehensive overview I have ever read of the corruption on the left. He has connected ALL the dots. He deserves many more subscribers than he has.
I wait for the analyses and facts plus that amazing connecting of dots, including history, now with anticipation.
Thanks, already read it. I found Peggy a few months ago and she is excellent!
I feel like legislators routine lying flows, somehow, out of our justice system's toleration of law enforcement's use of lying as a means justifying an end. Would democracy topple if police abandoned lying?
My husband spends time looking at videos of police encounters with innocent citizens just minding their business. I say no, David.
A boss once told me that companies need LOTS of people to get their stuff done; the bigger they are the more they need, but the number of GOOD people and even adequate people is strictly limited and at some point they have to lower standards to get enough people. I guess that could be said of any large organization.
Ahh... how so very convenient. Who knew this was coming? The death of a free speech advocate triggers calls for less free speech.
Meanwhile, does anyone else find it just a bit odd that there is a video of his wife crying and talking to her husband's dead body in a casket but only showing their hands? Call me crazy, but the last thing I want and think while I'm grieving is to post my grief on social media.
Yes, I also found that video very strange. And who was filming that? 28 years ago I lost my husband to a sudden fatal heart attack, and I was such an emotional wreck I couldn't even greet people at his funeral.
Exactly. The last thing I would want is to someone film me in my lowest state. It's as if they are putting on a show... That's not normal human behavior.
It seems to be the norm on social media today. I don’t care for it and I will keep saying that social media will be the death of this world.
If you're right, we're talking ourselves into early graves... Social media is the embodiment of that great old saw, "After all is said and done, more is said than done."
I don't use social media outside of substack so I wouldn't know. Posting videos of grief is not normal though. I agree with you to an extent. The death of this world is when people lose their humanity. We are seeing that play out as people argue which team is more righteous and asking for daddy government to help. It's insane.
I don't know what on earth is "normal" when it comes to the grief of a 30-something year old woman with two babies or anyone else who loses the person they love more than anyone or anything else.
There is no normal. Everyone grieves differently.
Performative for the diehard followers to stir the emotions.
Have some compassion. Who are we to judge her as our Lord commanded: take the log out of your own eye......
Substack is the only social media I participate on as well.
Me either, one can waste enormous amounts of time looking at it. Time that could be spent doing something dar more productive. I fear Substack is turning into a form of it.
Yes, I agree.
The still picture doesn’t look right. No face. I don’t think that’s Charlie’s widow. Is there a longer video to confirm that is his wife? I don’t trust much anymore.
I too stumbled on that clip and thought it was exceedingly odd. I did recall, though, that I had put out a call asking my cousins if they had any old pics of my mom as we planned on a 'through the years' display for my mom's 80th. (all her sisters have passed). One of my cousins showed up with several shoeboxes of pictures from the 1920's and 30's and newer that had been my grandma's that mom and I had never seen before. Sadly almost none were marked but there were a few sets of pictures of people in caskets!? Mom said that since people took very few pictures back then, (too expensive) that they would take pictures of the deceased since they had not taken any recent ones when they were alive. All this to say norms change. And while the video I saw was of seemingly of Erika, it was not her page, it was some random account, which also made me wonder if it was an AI fake. But why? Who knows.
When my grandmother died, in 2000, my mother did this, which yes, frankly horrified me. When I asked her why, see said she was doing it for family members who couldn’t be with us at the time.
Ok, I guess. I still wouldn’t do it, but I understand at least.
As far as the post of the widow - we have probably all seen the post of the military widows lying by caskets or on graves.
I tend to think that they see it as a testament of love for the fallen spouse. I can understand that too. And truthfully, I expect she didn’t give a good damn that someone was taking a picture. Along the lines of sure, fine, do whatever. If she was even aware of them at the time.
Remember, she was surrounded by the people who worked with her husband and running his company. That they were probably thinking of the optics from that point. You know, no such thing as bad publicity…
I once saw a grieving older woman try to get into the casket with her husband. She was Italian and I was told that was not uncommon. With everything else going wrong in this country, why would anyone criticize a woman grieving. FTLOG, people.
Well, whoever did it, I hope they had her permission. And agree, in the fog of grief she was probably like, whatever.
What looks "fake" to me were HIS hands! I know that makeup is used, but THAT much?
This conversation is ghoulish.
Yes, taking pictures of the deceased in their caskets was done as far back as the Civil War. My husband had numerous pictures of deceased aunts, uncles and grandparents. I don’t know if the reason you were given was the real reason, but it was a widespread practice.
I'm old enough to remember the stoic grace with which Jacqueline Kennedy exhibited her grief. Seems like the best approach to me.
But she was also aware of optics and planned what she wanted the public to see.
I would imagine in both of these women’s positions, they had to be.
I haven't been on Instagram or X for 5 days and I might just stay off of it forever.
I'm willing to withhold judgement in Erika Kirk's posting a video/photograph at her absolute worst. Much about deep grief is that it is irrational and many people in that condition engage in odd behavior; they create shrines in their homes; they can't even judge distances very well. It's all encompassing. Talk to anyone who's been through deep grief which actually is worse at the 6th month mark than it is in the beginning.
Yes. I’ve experienced it. I would say for two years, I had to keep reminding myself it was real and true that my daughter was gone. Every morning when I opened my eyes I had to face that reality like it was new information and the shock lingered. Right. She died. Year three I was starting to be able to manage it better. It’s year seven and I’m still “managing “ it. I have no opinion on how a person grieves . I can’t believe some of the ignorant comments made during that time
People are so willing to judge others when they have no clue about their broken hearts. And now they’re doubting that it was actually Erika. Unbelievable. They’re beginning to sound like Democrats.
This is what happens when trust has been betrayed. Everything appears to be questionable.
Trisha - I am deeply sorry for your loss.
A dear friend has a story almost exactly like yours. She said she couldn’t even speak until the funeral which was four days later. She could only nod or shake her head. 😢
Trisha, I'm so sorry. Keep on keeping on.
So sorry Trish. Hugs
That clip was so bizarre. Professionally done?! Oooky. Now I keep getting texts from some source regarding the Kirk legacy. Weird. Anyone else getting texts?
We had a speaker from TPUSA at my R womens club today and she was asked about text messages and emails asking for money that seem to be from TPUSA or 'for Kirk's family'. She said they have NEVER fundraised that way and to delete/block. I did too but knew it was a scam. Scum trying to make a buck.
Yes, and I delete them and report them as junk.
now THAT'S the REAL truth
I agree Vee. I’m even getting spam texts from his widow. I find it unsettling.
Me too. Asking for donations to continue Turning Point’s message.
I'm pretty sure she's not sending them.
Sounds like opportunistic grifting and preying on the immediate emotions of the masses.
Agree
I’m getting text from what says to be her too. Could it be it’s fake crap?
Or nefarious - asking for donations?? I don’t read them I delete them.
While I feel terrible for Erika Kirk and the rest of the family, I also thought that video was weird and in pretty poor taste. Not sure who filmed it but it looks like it was released with her approval, and maybe she’s just that level headed and focused, maybe she and Charlie had long talks about how to handle things if the worst should happen, but even so... weird. I would never want that moment documented.
You really believe that? Did you catch this one put out two days after she allegedly witnessed the brutal killing of her husband and the father of her two little children? https://x.com/MattersInformed/status/1966795481264148658
None of this is anywhere near normal, unless you're already a robot of sorts.
Last Wednesday was the death of free speech. And no, I do not find Erika Kirk's grieving at all odd, especially when those who hated Kirk are doing and saying things that deserve our scorn more than she does.
I don’t want the government passing propaganda laws. 100%. But the government deliberately lies. It should be stopped from promoting lies. Not the people.
And the MSM deliberately lies. We all know that. How to stop it? Make it so they can be sued for promoting false narratives. Van Jones was at a coffee cart buying something and someone asked him gushingly (fake too because the gusher knew Van lied) ‘have we got him finally? Is Trump going down?’ Van said ‘No it is a big nothing burger.’ When asked why CNN was frothing at the mouth promoting it Jones said ‘Rating. We are way up in viewership. That’s all.’ So Van Jones admitted they lied to their viewers for ratings. And lied while attempting to topple a government. That has to be stopped. CNN should lose its license.
And what about her lengthy 'presentation'? or propaganda laden eulogy? Or whatever it was two days after the "killing?" Catch that truly bizarre and somewhat creepy video? I dove in yesterday and I'm heavily leaning toward staged event already and it's mainly because of the close analysis of a blown up version of the video of the shooting. Linked in this piece if you're interested: https://miri.substack.com/p/his-story-her-story-and-the-truth?r=kuj0w&triedRedirect=true
Thanks Bradley! I got chastised in this substack for sharing Miri's first post about Kirk. I think Miri is spot on as always! I really do think she's on a completely different level when it comes to analyzing current events.
Thanks Bradley! I got chastised in this substack for sharing Miri's first post about Kirk. I think Miri is spot on as always! I really do think she's on a completely different level when it comes to analyzing current events.
Thanks Bradley! I got chastised in this substack for sharing Miri's first post about Kirk. I think Miri is spot on as always! I really do think she's on a completely different level when it comes to analyzing current events.
Thanks Bradley! I got chastised in this substack for sharing Miri's first post about Kirk. I think Miri is spot on as always! I really do think she's on a completely different level when it comes to analyzing current events.
Thanks Bradley! I got chastised in this substack for sharing Miri's first post about Kirk. I think Miri is spot on as always! I really do think she's on a completely different level when it comes to analyzing current events.
From where I sit the idea that government censorship could be a solution to ANYTHING suggests that we, as a species, will never learn.
100% correct
Among the grammy-nominated band names of the year, in addition to "Critics Argue" and "Baffled Scientists".....:
"The Experts" 🎸🎺🤘
I find the idea of this being revived a terrifying one, because of the fact that administrations would have to define "propaganda," which as far as I can see it means that if we continue to flip back and forth from R to D presidents, we'd have a revolving door of different viewpoints being prosecuted and then pardoned.
The fact that Covid truths continue were defined as conspiracy and propaganda and used to cancel people was bad enough without it being official policy.
And the public outcry would be DEAFENING.
Wouldn't this basically open the door for us to have a bunch of Graham Linehans here?
...I guess you could argue that whichever party's in control if this gets picked up will STAY in control since they then control the narrative.
It’s all a scary thought! Free speech is being threatened by both sides.
And yet each side only recognizes the other side doing it...
Most of them are in line on this together, and they're the puppets. There are some exceptions on the right, but still seemingly none on the left with regard to Congress and other high profile leaders.
So true!
I thought the young red-head said the law was to separate “opinion” from fact? Most “news presenters” don’t have a clue. For the record: government should not define propaganda, neither should schools or medicos. Keep praying and head on a swivel. It’s nuts “out there”. ✌🏼🫶🕯️
Carol M., Bumper Sticker? "It's NUTS out here!"
Perhaps add, "bring an umbrella." As in, "Bring an umbrella, it's NUTS out here!"
There's ROOM! Done!
You do love bumper stickers, don’t you David?!? Lmao
"Love?" (It's complicated...) I can tell that a long time ago I concluded, based on my observations about the number and levels of distractions available to us that "If your argument won't fit on a bumper sticker, it doesn't stand a chance."
I am simultaneously scared to death of this going through, (think freedom of speech gone awry), and also entirely sick of the hate and untruth trolling the internet. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I don't know that this bill, the way it sits right now, is not the answer. And I truthfully don't know what the answer is.
The answer is to turn off your phone, shut down your browser and stop seeing the "trolling" and "hate". As individuals we can control how much of this garbage we consume. No one else should be attempting to control it.
While I somewhat agree with you, the answer isn't to cut yourself off from everything. That's almost impossible. I say almost because i have done it before for a year and it was pretty freaking glorious. But I don't trust the media, so I get my news from people like Jenny. To shut myself off from that would be absurd.
Yes, to elaborate, I'm not advocating cutting yourself off, just adjusting how much you want to see. I watch a lot to stay informed of what others are seeing. When it gets overwhelming then I take a break.
You are correct there! Cutting off the dribble does sound amazing!
I know that I don't want anyone *else* in charge of what I see and what I don't see. That's for me to determine (and one reason I like MeWe more than any other social media).
But much of the most heinous lies over the past decade were initially spread by the mainstream news. The internet and influencers pick it up, and for years trusted they were reposting facts unaware the MSM was actually captured by political tyrants. It really did start with the morning and evening news. So we have to cut ourselves off from the news as an answer? I agree with you that we need to all step back from the amount of time we are engrossed on the internet, and get away from exposure to the hate, but I don’t think that would have been an effective answer to what actually happened the past decade.
I also agree that it’s a slippery slope tinkering with speech. However, they had to create that Modernization act to do what they wanted to do to us in the first place - so that tells me it wasn’t effective to lie to us until they modified the original act, and it was a necessary fence that had previously safeguarded us. It didn’t infringe on our free speech before.
But yeah, Democrats will bastardize anything to take away our rights c
How about we just repeal the whole damn thing and not lie overseas too? I don’t know enough about foreign affairs to know if spreading propaganda is ever necessary. I think spreading the truth is more effective personally. Why were we meddling that way where we felt spreading lies in other countries was “American”?
How it is written is everything, and it has to be limited to the government agencies, institutions, representatives, and the national news media that people rely on for the actual truth, not reach social influencers who are basically the common citizen discussing what these leaders and institutions have said and how. The only reason X has the breaking news is because they had to expose the lies after the MSM became rabid dogs. They had to cover “the rest of the story” when the media purposefully ignored it - because with that act they can. But most of what I see and read on there as well as here is discussing of what was already reported, or what was purposefully ignored. Frankly an individual, non-government affiliated citizen has the right to spread misinformation if they choose, but the government who risks grabbing power away from The People does not. If they sit in a seat of “Authority” (and this includes public schools,) there HAS to be fencing or they will tear up our yards as we just watched them do. Social influencers who spread lies would have natural boundaries because of the social consequences of knowingly doing it, and it would be easy to prove they have done it if we have an honest government and media who can’t.
(As you can see I’m still in the process of chewing on this from both perspectives.)
The USA isn't a travel agency. Our government shouldn't be promoting how wonderful we are, no matter whether it's true or false, across the entire world (and here in the USA).
So yes, I advocate for the government being out of the "information" business. But individuals and corporations must have the freedom to spread whatever opinions they have. It's up to the people to decide what they want to consume and what they want to ignore / reject.
Yes John, this sounds like a great and refreshing solution to me, but it will not reach the manipulated masses and it is these unaware and mostly well intentioned folks who worry and scare me.
This is a very valid concern. We are living in a wild new world full of conflict and misinformation. I'm extremely anti-censorship. If we don't want to be gagged and silenced ourselves then we must allow those with other views to also spout whatever garbage they produce.
The answer, of a sort, was provided by Mr. John Adams. In a letter to the Massachusetts Militia on October 11, 1798, he wrote:
"𝗢𝘂𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗣𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲. 𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net."
(Curious, that word "gallantry," no?) ...and HERE we all are. Are we a "moral" and "religious" People? No? Then our Constitution is inadequate to our government--and it's the BEST that's ever been; if IT can't govern us adequately, we'll fall. And it will be on us, who chose immorality and irreligiousness, with the ironic excuse of "freedom."
Freedom and all it's chaos, is still preferable to me than tyranny.
David, have you seen this video yet? It's short.
https://x.com/gbnt1952/status/1966263233947566496?s=42
No I had not ...yet. NOW I have. Mr. Kirk delivered THAT, without notes. (Me? I had to look it up.) "We are no longer a Christian nation, but we still have a Christian form of government, and the two are not compatible." he said.
His understanding of the first state constitutions is correct. And that last sentence is powerful stuff. I can't think of an observation more worthy of memorizing!
This really gave me something to think about. Thank you for posting. Wish we had more governing officials like John Adams. I looked up gallantry and I am indeed curious. Definition said, “courageous behavior, especially in battle” and “polite attention or respect given by men to women”. This is puzzling; what are your thoughts?
ChatGPT gave me this interesting analysis (and let me say this is one of my favorite quotes from our Founding Fathers):
Notice that Adams is grouping gallantry with destructive passions: avarice (greed), ambition (self-aggrandizement), revenge (vengefulness). Here gallantry is not “heroic courage” in a positive sense, but rather vain display, showy recklessness, or superficial honor-seeking — behavior that looks noble but undermines civic stability.
In the 18th century, gallantry could mean “courtly ostentation” or “vain pursuit of glory” (a sense closer to “flashy bravado”). Adams is warning that if citizens or leaders chase those impulses instead of grounding themselves in morality and religion, the Constitution’s checks and balances will be powerless — like a fishing net against a whale.
David, love that you pursued it further. There was a comment from John Anthony about this and Chat gave him a different bit of very interesting information. Do u see his comment? If not, let me know and I will copy it for you
Marjorie, I ran right by it after saying it was curious... but you've caught me out. AI tried to say Adams was using it "in contrast" to the other terms, but I think that's silly. Rather, I think he meant that, like ambition, it can be too much of a good thing. Casting about for something contemporaneous to him, and this is the purest wild conjecture, I wonder if Mr. Adams might have been thinking of people who, moved by gallantry, would "vote to proclaim the Hero of Yorktown king," as a reward for his "saving the Revolution" and thus jump right back into the fire...
I just re-read my comment and adjusted it. I meant to say that the bill the way it sits right now is NOT the answer.
We have to use our discernment.
I'm not for state censorship. But being able to sue a media outlet (or anyone) for non-truths needs to be an option
Yes, there are libel and slander laws on the books. I think I'd like to see lying laws too, but I don't know how, in this age where everyone "has their own 'truth'." A lot of people (most??) who create lies, or spread them, are probably guilty of being too lazy to hunt for the truth[1]. I don't want a law criminalizing laziness. Maybe if The Government would maintain an easily consulted Ministry of Truth, or plastered the walls and screens with posters and ads reminding us WHO of our masters was the ultimate arbiter of official "truth," we could all just look at each other across our once-daily gruels and understand "I think we can agree on how this happened."
[1] Which is Why we need indefatigable observers and reporters like Jenna McCarthy (who may be granted the occasional 'off' day to chase rabbits). She says "conspiracy theorist," but it's the truth she brings to the table that's better than any gruel.
When "news" shows can't be sued because "it's entertainment" we have a problem.
You raise a salient point: in an era in which truth is regarded as subjective, I can't imagine how any of this would work.
Agree
It's not an option for most people because it expensive. By the time the lawsuit is resolved everyone believes the lie.
I didn’t vote in today’s poll. As a First Amendment absolutist, I feel a little queasy about bringing back the Smith Act 1.0 for all the reasons you listed. It’s another way to squash freedom of speech and it’s in conflict with the First. My idea is 1. No cell phones for kids. 2. All schools and colleges and churches and even the YMCA, the NRA, local governments, and the Lions Club need to start talking today about the First and what it means and why we need it. 3. We need to rededicate the nation to the Constitution and the Declaration. Every town needs a chapter of Turning Point. An American Renaissance, if you will. 4. One last thing: stop buying stuff from those who push lies. 5. Oh, and one more thing, every school must require all students to take a course in propaganda and how to spot it.
Bring back Civics classes, as History, in high school.
A wonderful idea. Years ago I read that somewhere north of 85% of the population had never read the Declaration of Independence. And that's a short document. That says to me that even more people have no idea of the Constitution's content or how it works.
Agreed, and I was actually thinking of you when I added the word History.
Although not particularly an A.L. fan (EVERYONE KNOWS HE WAS A FASCIST!!! [that's supposed to be funny to people who know me from past posts]), I add "The Gettysburg Address":
"𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘂𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿, 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝘂𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗿 𝘀𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝗯𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱. 𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘂𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗮𝘀𝗸 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘂𝘀 — 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗵𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘄𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗴𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗳𝘂𝗹𝗹 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 — 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘃𝗮𝗶𝗻 — 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗚𝗼𝗱, 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗯𝗶𝗿𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗼𝗺 — 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲, 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗵."
If you've been following the latest trendy trend of "accelerationism" (as wicked a philosophy as satan has ever spewed), you'll know there are now people who've persuaded themselves that "there is no hope that mankind will come out of these latest troubles alive," or with lives worth living. They have--stupidly--devoted themselves to "accelerating" what they see as the "inevitable" extinction of man. They, if you will please believe it, DELIGHT in "befriending" vulnerable young people on social media, influencing them to perform debasing acts, and then BOAST about how their threats to expose them led to their eventual suicides.
Such reptilian morlocks exist.
And while it is to be hoped these sewer dwellers can be flushed out (no pun i.) and "accelerated" towards their hoped-for annihilations, meanwhile, "𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘂𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿, 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸... ...𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲, 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗵."
Sadly, one of my sisters is an accelerationist/nihilist. We can't talk about anything anymore. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is particularly appropriate. Thanks for reminding me.
The problem now Mary Ann is depending on who teaches the course....it's gonna be skewed! I know so many folks who are talking about propaganda from the right, as if the left doesn't have any.
People can have opinions about the Constitution, but the fact remains that it is quite clear on its provisions. OR, people who approve the Constitution, along with someone who disapproves of it could be paired up to teach such classes.
Turning Point is an Israel First organization. So forget #3.
Nonsense. Utter nonsense.
If you think nothing I say has any validity, don't read it. Your responses add little to the conversation. I doubt you will, but here are two conversations you could learn from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5k04NXJ4c_w
https://www.narativ.org/p/the-fivestack-live-sainthood-charlie?publication_id=1581221&post_id=173697129&r=f8h4m&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Or you can just cover your ears and sing "lalala" at the top of your lungs.
I read your comments because they are so unreal. And I'm interested in seeing how far people will go to deny the truth. And I know that the truth wouldn't even be enough to move you.
I'm truly sorry that our world has led you to believe in fanciful and untrue ideas.
Uh no lol
Indeed. NO town (nor college) needs a Turning Point chapter!
You must be upset that over the weekend, 32,000 new requests for Turning Point chapters were sent in. I am exploring ways to get one in my community. Who knew that "Turning Point" would be such a prophetic name?
In H. School, we had a speech course that dealt w/ propaganda (1970's).
All to the good! Sadly, propaganda has become so much more sophisticated and more difficult to detect than it was in the 70s.
Do you know who developed propaganda as we know it today in WW1?
Well, let's see: George Creel and the CPI, Ida Tarbell (who is from Titusville, PA where I am from and a small note of interest, my grandmother was given Ida Tarbell's doll cradle b/c her father worked for Ida's father in his barrel making business), S.S. McClure, Harold Lasswell, Edward Bernays, and Walter Lippmann all come to mind. Creel, Lasswell, Bernays, and Lippmann, in particular, were interested in shaping public opinion (or manufacturing consent) in order to align it with government objectives since the masses were incapable of understanding . But Creel was first out of the box.
Yes, the U.S. started modern propaganda. Germany was so impressed they copied it.
Bernays' book is worth reading.
Elly is right. The internet has been full, these last few days, of idiots claiming that Charlie Kirk advocated for the stoning to death of gays, because the dying legacy media clipped him out of context and amplified it. They knew what they were doing - subtly saying that it was ok to kill him because he held abhorrent views. But he didn't advocate for any such thing - it was the media brazenly lying.
Also look at the UK this weekend. Tommy Robinson held a march that saw *well over* 500k attendees (making it the biggest protest in UK history) march "largely peacefully" through London protesting against that country's eroding freedom of speech, amongst other things. The media's take? Of course they passed it off as a "far right rally" and said that "tens of thousands" attended.
And finally - no wonder Trump loves this idea. This is exactly what the media did to him with the "fine people on both sides" lie.
So - as long as there are safeguards and opinions are still free to be published - I'm with Elly.
Slippery slope when the other side gets to decide what harmful misinformation is.
One of the biggest blind spots people have is - laws can and will be used against you
I disagree. A provable fact is a provable fact. Anything else is an opinion. Reporting opinions as facts is the problem here.
You know it's a fact that vaccines are safe and effective.
Saying they aren't is a lie and could hurt a lot of people.
Oh boy, someone has done no research on the subject.
I was being sarcastic. Anyone who thinks truth will save the day and set them free in a country that jails liars is in for a sad suprise.
Are all vaccines safe for everyone? Are all vaccines effective for everyone?
I honestly don't know, but opinions I've been immersed in since 2020 suggest both answers are "No." If they are not, then built into the definition of "safe" is an assumption that a certain number, possibly arbitrary, of "negative consequences" is acceptable for the good of the herd.
Oh no lol
9/11 was also a fact and covid was real and has Heidi has pointed out it's also a fact that vaccines are safe and effective. Jenna would be on the chopping boarding if this act were to pass and so would most of her followers.
9/11 *did* happen. The planes flew into the towers. What else went down that day...I don't know but I have my suspicions. I can write perfectly easily what my suspicions are, without reporting them as fact.
As for the Death Jabs, well they are demonstrably *not* safe and effective and I would gladly take the stand to defend that position. In fact it would be a blessing, as the authorities might then have to show us their evidence that I was wrong.
If you were to claim that building number 7 collapsed because of demolition, you'd be labeled as a propagandist pushing pleeb.
The authorities would censor you, fine you, and potentially lock you up if your facts disagreed with theirs. That's the point, Dan.
Why in the world would you ever trust the federal government to define what is propaganda and what is not when they are the main culprits of pushing out propaganda?
Again, I disagree. I could easily say that "no sensible explanation has yet been offered as to why Building 7 collapsed" or even "I have my suspicions that Building 7's collapse is not what the authorities say it is" which would be my opinion. It's quite simple...what Elly is asking for is the separation of facts v opinions.
You just won stupid comment of the day! 🏆 congratulations. Good luck proving vaccines are dangerous.
Thanks Heidi - I'll take your resorting to calling me "stupid" to mean that you have no sensible argument to offer. And to be clear, it is the experimental gene therapy, aka Covid-19 'vaccine' that I am referring to. I did not claim that *all* vaccines are dangerous (although I am also not saying that they are not).
Right. Like “vaccines save lives.” The depth of corruption should educate us that we cannot trust what comes out of government. Free speech. Period.
Dan McCarthy may have something: they/the govt. (still!) let companies sell tobacco products. They just have to carry a warning. It may be as simple as "flagging" commentary as "opinion-not-fact," thus daring any unflagged comments to be investigated for falsehoods.
In my opinion(s), simply requiring "news" sources to be labeled "nothing but our opinionated opinions" would start a move away from the widely held belief that they are driven by purehearts.
Every time I see one of these I suddenly become a believer:
Climate change is real. Please go to climatechange.org to read the facts.
Vaccines are safe and effective. Please visit CDC.gov to learn more about how vaccines save lives.
I really need to get off SS comments.
But you didn't answer my questions about vaccines! Are they or are they not safe and effective for every person? Is there an inherent assumption of an acceptable level of injury?
Climate change IS real! (It always has been.) My "proof," difficult as it is to present in this forum, is glaciation. What still needs indisputable proof is whether mankind is responsible for it, or merely a victim of larger forces. (You really would benefit from a look into the treatment that field geologist J. Harlan Bretz was accorded by virtually the entire rest of the geological establishment of his day. He was a lone voice trying to argue that the erosion of a large area of the northwest United States happened not, as then conventionally accepted, over the course of MILLIONS of years, but over the course of a few weeks. HIS is a textbook case of scientific bullying working AGAINST scientific principles. Graybeards know "if it happened even once, it can happen again.")
The government made the CDC and the CDC says they are safe.
My son's Autism, due to vaccines, means noting to them. My substack posts showing exactly how vaccines induce Autism using medical literature means nothing to them. Truth is what they say it is and if laws are made to punish anyone who doesn't speak their truth, we will be living in a world where the government tells us what to think.
Wow 😯
Some “news” sources do this but it’s in the “fine print” which they know that most never read that part
True
The number I've seen reported was 100K. Not the biggest protest in UK history. I've been to bigger in London.
This is quite funny - you have fallen for exactly the sort of false reporting that this entire conversation is about, LOL
Oh, okay. And Trump had a bigger crowd at his inauguration than Obama. Yeah! I remember that one too! Whatever. I hope for England's sake that was not an accurate number. Their economy is in free fall and they don't need a race war on top of everything else.
Just look at the pictures available online. Even some mainstream media outlets are admitting it was 500k+. But many reports say 1m+. Either way, it is not a "race war", it is a population asking for the migration into its country to be policed adequately, so that only legal migrants can come in. Not too much to ask!
Agree.
Considering what the government can do/will do/does do to so much of what touches, I have to say, "no, I don't think this is a good idea." Also, consider what Charlie Kirk's supporters have done in the aftermath of his assassination! Rude (being extremely kind here) folks have been fired, businesses have been brought to their knees for expressing abominably rude (see previous parenthesis) opinions. I think, now there's truly a 'turning point,' that the people have it well in hand.
Banning "propaganda". Well, I don't think our government should fund producing "information" for mass consumption. Revert the CDC to quietly publishing statistics and other such information, but the government shouldn't be in the "self advertising" business.
However, the rest of us need Free Speech! So I don't care who's crazy cousin makes a Tik-Tok of some bizarre theory. That's okay, let them publish it. Freedom for private individuals, restraints on government.
I'll tell you what's so hard to believe... after being lied to so many times by our government, 911, Las Vegas 2017, COVID, Las Vegas 2025... just to remind everyone of the most notable of the lies that our government is guilty of in a relatively recent time frame... I find it unbelievable that they're telling the truth this time.
In the words of the late, great Gore Vidal... "I'm not a conspiracy theorist - I'm a conspiracy analyst."
You forgot WMD, and a whole host FF shootings with the biggest being SH.
We're continually being played.
"No matter how cynical you get, it's never enough." Lily Tomlin
Mine was just the short list... :)
Hey Jenna! Fellow conspiracy theorist (knower) here. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act was tucked inside the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. It was passed by the House and then Senate December 20 & 21 respectively and then signed by Obama January 2. That was fast. Why didn't anyone fight against it or report on it????? Everyone was busy looking in a different direction. Right before, December 14, Sandy Hook shooting occurred.
To abandon individual rights, including diluting the First Amendment protection of free speech, in the wake of crisis is accomplishing exactly what progressives have sought. It is during crises that we need to double down on individual rights protections.
YES
The vast majority does not trust the government, so leaving them to decide what is propaganda seems rather redundant.
Rush adamantly supported free speech, even if he totally disagreed with you.