“We Shouldn’t Have Done It”: The Facebook Files Confirm Censorship Extended From Official Data To Jokes

Below is my column in The Hill on the release of the “Facebook Files.” After years to refusing to release the files or answer questions on its work with the government over the censorship of its users, Facebook yielded after Congress threatened contempt sanctions. The files are chilling but familiar. They include the government’s insistence on the censoring of official and true information on the side effects of the Covid vaccines as well as the origin of the virus. At one point, Nick Clegg, the company’s president of global affairs asked “Can someone quickly remind me why we were removing—rather than demoting/labeling—claims that Covid is man made.” The Vice President in charge of content policy responded, “We were under pressure from the administration and others to do more. We shouldn’t have done it.”

Here is the column:

COVID-19, the flu and the common cold all walk into a bar. The bartender asks, “what is this?  Some kind of sick joke?”

Indeed, it is one of the many COVID-19 jokes that raged on the internet during the pandemic. What citizens did not know is that the Biden administration was tracking the laugh lines for censorship, along with other views it found neither funny nor helpful.

The newly released “Facebook Files” revealed a concerted effort by the Biden administration to censor not just false information, but also true information, along with jokes that its functionaries simply found annoying.

Months ago, I testified before Congress on censorship after Elon Musk’s release of internal Twitter communications, also known as the Twitter Files. I warned that the government was engaging in “censorship by surrogate,” using corporate allies to do indirectly what it is legally prevented from doing directly.

Facebook had refused to open its own files on government censorship efforts. That came to an end when the House Judiciary Committee finally moved to hold Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in contempt of Congress.

The resulting Facebook Files confirmed what many of us have suspected for years. Indeed, the emails proved to be a mirror image of what had occurred at Twitter — a massive effort by the government to pressure the company to censor its critics and other dissenting voices.

Facebook executives used similar language to lament the “overwhelming” effort of the government to censor citizens and its unwillingness to take “no” for an answer.

Over at Twitter, executives described a deluge of demands for censorship from federal officials at the FBI and other agencies. One official wrote that “[t]he FBI has some folks in the Baltimore field office and at HQ that are just doing keyword searches for violations. This is probably the 10th request I have dealt with in the last 5 days.”

In January 2020, Twitter’s then-director of policy and philanthropy, Carlos Monje Jr., expressed unease about the pressure coming from the FBI. “They are probing & pushing everywhere they can (including by whispering to congressional staff),” he said.

One email from August 2022 sent “long lists of newspapers, tweets or YouTube videos” deemed to be voicing “anti-Ukraine narratives.” Even satirical and comedy sites were reportedly designated by the government for removal.

Now we know that Facebook executives were facing the same insatiable government desire for censorship. In an April 2021 email, Nick Clegg, Facebook’s president for global affairs, wrote to colleagues that Andy Slavitt, a senior adviser to Biden who was steering COVID-19 policy, “was outraged — not too strong a word to describe his reaction — that [Facebook] did not remove this post.”

The post was actually a humorous meme shared by a user named Timothy McComas. It featured actor Leonardo DiCaprio’s character from the film “Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood,” pointing at a TV with a beer and cigarette in hand. The caption read: “10 years from now, you will be watching TV and hear…. ‘Did you or a loved one take the COVID vaccine? You may be entitled…’”

Slavitt was not amused. More importantly, he was irate that others were amused. Hundreds of thousands of others.

He explained that McComas had to be censored because such humor “demonstrably inhibits confidence in COVID vaccines amongst those the Biden Administration is trying to reach.”

At the same time, the White House was targeting those with well-founded questions over the efficacy of masks, the relative protection of natural immunities and the harm posed to children in the pandemic measures. Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg wrote: “We are facing continued pressure from external stakeholders, including the [Biden] White House” to remove posts criticizing COVID-19 vaccines.

As at Twitter, the pressure on Facebook was unrelenting. Even with a massive censorship partnership in place, President Joe Biden continued to accuse Big Tech of “killing people” by not censoring more citizens. Many of those targets are now recognized as having raised valid objections, including on the origins of the virus in a Chinese lab.

An Aug. 2, 2021, Facebook email said that the company’s leadership “asked Misinfo Policy…to brainstorm some additional policy levers we can pull to be more aggressive against…misinformation. This is stemming from the continued criticism of our approach from the [Biden] administration.”

Facebook officials began to object, but continued to ban users. In one email, a vice president balked that “the [White House] has previously indicated that it thinks humor should be removed if it is premised on the vaccine having side effects, so we expect it would similarly want to see humor about vaccine hesitancy removed.”

There was to be no allowance for humor or even true information that did not advance the government’s narrative. The House has uncovered a myriad of grants given to academic and private groups to blacklist and target those with opposing views, including the posting of true information.

There was an array of government agencies targeting citizens and groups for censorship. In another hearing, I testified on efforts by Jen Easterly, who leads the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, to extend her regulatory authority by declaring that “critical infrastructure” includes “our cognitive infrastructure,” in which she saw it as her role to build “resilience to misinformation and disinformation.”

The administration also demanded the removal of “malinformation” that is “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”

Government-funded groups such as the Stanford Virality Project declared that even “true stories…could fuel hesitancy” over taking the vaccine or other measures. The Twitter files showed that this included “worrisome jokes.”

The Biden administration and its allies were right about one thing: Jokes can be deadly to a censorship system. For centuries, humor has been the effective way to expose the abusive and often ridiculous efforts of censorship.

So, in an effort to make the government’s censorship listing, here is one that might resonate with the administration and its hosts on social media:

A coronavirus walks into a bar. The bartender says, “Sorry, we don’t serve viruses here!”

The coronavirus replies, “Well, you’re not a very good host!”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University.

129 thoughts on ““We Shouldn’t Have Done It”: The Facebook Files Confirm Censorship Extended From Official Data To Jokes”

  1. Whatg is most damning is that those running twitter and Facebook and … who were themselves unebelivably sympathetic to the positions on the left, and openly hostile to the viewpoints they were censoring.

    Even they were offended and appalled by the extent of government censorhip and and did as they were told not as they wanted.

  2. The head of every government department that asked any social media company to censor American Citizen’s speech should be prosecuted. A government official using the power afforded them by government service to deny American citizens any rights allotted them by the Constitution is a crime. Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
    For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
    The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

  3. The Most Embarrassing “Facebook Files” Revelation? The Press, Exposed as Censors
    “In one damning email, an unnamed Facebook executive wrote to Mark Zuckerberg and Cheryl Sandberg:

    We are facing continued pressure from external stakeholders, including the White House and the press, to remove more Covid-19 vaccine discouraging content.”

  4. My sister-in-law posted a rank of Facebook complaining about people who didn’t want to wear masks with a selfie of her wearing a mask and a face shield. I replied that there was no scientific evidence that healthy people who did not work with sick people, like she did, needed to wear masks.

    She sent me a link to a study that argued for universal mask wearing, but buried deep in the article it agreed with me that there was no scientific evidence that healthy people, who did not work with sick people, needed to wear masks. However, it went on to argue that universal mask wearing was necessary to prevent a stigma being associated with mask wearing.

    Shortly afterwards, the whole discussion thread disappeared. I do not think my sister-in-law knew how to make that happen.

      1. My sister-in-law posted a rant on … [don’t you hate ‘Automistake’ and web sites that don’t let you edit comments?]

  5. 𝐒𝐚𝐲 𝐆𝐨𝐨𝐝𝐛𝐲𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐥
    Americans will need a visa to visit Europe in 2024. Meanwhile, Europeans who have been to Cuba are discovering they can’t come to the U.S., because terrorism.
    By: Matt Welch ~ 7.28.2023

    2023 Henley Passport Index

    Examples of free movement arrangements between countries: European Union


    1. I’ve been to europe but didn’t leave anything worth going back to retrieve.

  6. There it is again. Please join me in pushing Dennis’ worthless, off topic ramblings further down the line. Let this narcissist know that he is wrong, the readers of this blog (outside of gigi, fish lips, and ATS) are not at all interested in his drivel.

    1. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are not the least bit interested in their wholly antithetical, anti-American drivel.

      They are proponents of the principles of communism—central planning, control of the means of production (i.e., unconstitutional regulation), redistribution of wealth, and social engineering—and Karl Marx’s motto: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

      They are de facto direct and mortal enemies of the American thesis of freedom and self-reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual Americans, and America.

      The rule of the constitution is maximal freedom for individuals and maximal limitation and restriction on government.

      The goal of these communists is the elimination of freedom and the forcible imposition of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

    2. And the there is Sergio. And we are all allys despite them. There will never be a nuclear war because we love each other too much. I love Russians too much to ever let a nuclear war. You caught me….lajes 86 545499a. So be it. Call me treason…but those ppl are my allies….we couldn’t wina world war without those men. Sergio. If they wanna hange so be it. From me to you thank you for siding with america. I truly love you. Except that lady with the big ringng on my husband.

  7. Dennis McIntyre,
    The Professor can give an opinion on anything he wants to. The only question is whether people who read the opinion consider it salient to the discussion.
    You, Mr. McIntyre, seem to have a great deal of ignorance on medicine and how licensing boards actually work. Ivermectin is approved for use in Humans but not for Covid. That does not mean you cannot use the drug for that. The importance of that use is whether the drug causes a medical injury, whether that injury, is medically important and causes a significant injury or death in the patient. Then there usually has to be a complaint. This might come in a malpractice suit and reporting the results to the medical licensing board or a complaint direct from the patient or a family member because of the drug’s use. Simple use off-label, in most states, will not necessarily lead to licensing board interventions or any actions at all
    Off label use of medications has been common all through modern medicine for decades. Many medications have multiple uses and many were discovered after they were released for another use. Propranolol (first beta blocker) was released only for hypertension and subsequently found to be effective in angina, tachycardias, migraine headache, post heart attack care, and many other essential medical tasks. Septra was used for years for urinary tract infections yet later became the mainstay of treatment and prevention of pneumocystis pneumonia in HIV and Transplant patients. Off label use is one of the mainstays of progress in medicine.
    Duloxetine is a great drug for depression but later found to be great for chronic pain. Seizure drugs were found to treat trigeminal neuralgia. The list is incredibly long.
    So maybe the professors opinion is more important than yours, whatever your qualifications

  8. Jonathan: So what else was in the news this week that might be of interest to your loyal followers? For starters DJT’s Save America PAC has spent a staggering $40 million on DJT’s legal expenses the first half of this year–all related to his civil and criminal litigation. This means a lot of money that would have been used for the 2024 campaign has to be diverted to legal expenses. Small donors who thought they were contributing to DJT’s 2024 campaign are facing a rude awakening.

    Making matters worse for the Trumpster, Salon is reporting (7/27/23) the former president is struggling to find experienced criminal defense counsel to represent him. Besides being a “infamously difficult client”, one attorney who has refused to represent DJT says the coming Jan. 6 indictment by Jack Smith is a “certain loser for the defense”. Other lawyers who have been approached refused representation “because of concerns from their peers”. Even Alan Dershowitz, who represented DJT in the first impeachment trial, has refused several requests to represent DJT. Oh, well, you make your bed and then you have to lie in it!

    In other news, former Trump/Giuliani operative, Lev Parnas, has come clean. He was part of the team, led by Rudy, to go to Ukraine to dig up supposed dirt on Hunter Biden’s business dealings and to try to prove Joe Biden coordinated the ousting of Ukrainian prosecutor Victor Shokin in order to protect Hunter. In a long statement Parnas says he could find no evidence to back up any of the DJT/Giuliani false narrative. It looks like the chickens are finally coming home to roost! Stick around long enough and the truth will finally come out.

    1. Dennis McIntyre: “Lev Parnas, has come clean. He was part of the team, led by Rudy, to go to Ukraine to dig up supposed dirt on Hunter Biden’s business dealings and to try to prove Joe Biden coordinated the ousting of Ukrainian prosecutor Victor Shokin in order to protect Hunter. In a long statement Parnas says he could find no evidence to back up any of the DJT/Giuliani false narrative.”
      Sen Grassley:
      “According to the FBI’s confidential human source, executives for Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company, brought Hunter Biden on the board to “protect us through his dad, from all kinds of problems.” At the time, Burisma was seeking to do business in the United States, but was facing a corruption investigation in Ukraine, led by then-Ukraine Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. Regarding that investigation’s impact on its ambitions in North America, Burisma CEO Mykola Zlochevsky reportedly said, “Don’t worry Hunter will take care of all of those issues through his dad.” Zlochevsky reportedly stated that he had to pay $5 million to Hunter Biden and $5 million to Joe Biden, an arrangement he described as ‘poluchili,’ which is Russian crime slang for being “forced or coerced to pay,” according to the document.”
      To paraphrase Churchill – “Some chickens. Some roost.”

    2. There it is again. Please join me in pushing Dennis’ worthless, off topic ramblings further down the line. Let this narcissist know that he is wrong, the readers of this blog (outside of gigi, fish lips, and ATS) are not at all interested in his drivel.

  9. Step 1: It’s not happening. The allegations are just a right-wing conspiracy theory.

    Step 2: Yeah, it’s happening, but not a big deal.

    Step 3: It’s actually a good thing the democrats are doing this.

    Step 4: Republican’s pounce! That’s the real problem. <——-You are now here.

    Step 5: It was actually the Republicans's fault.

  10. Jonathan: I am not surprised Facebook was also contacted by the Biden administration re: misinformation about Covid-19. And there was a lot of it on social media. Even you spread a lot of it about the efficacy of the vaccines, face masks, etc. You even do it again in this column with the false claims that the government was “censoring of official and true information on the side effects of Covid vaccines as well as the origin of the virus”. What “true information”? What “side effects”? The few people who had side effects from the vaccines were far and few between. And those side effects were mild compared to hospitalization and death from not getting vaccinated. The overwhelming weight of the medical evidence is that the 2 vaccines helped prevent the death of millions of Americans–especially among the elderly. And there is no medical or government consensus on the origins of Covid-19. There is certainly no consensus the virus originated in a bio-lab in Wuhan.

    Coincidentally, the Washington Post had an article a few days ago reporting that in 2021 some doctors around the country were proscribing ivermectin for Covid patients–a drug only used to treat parasitic infections. The patients treated with ivermectin died anyway. Some of the doctors have been fined for “disseminating misinformation” but continue to practice medicine–even after complaints from fellow doctors. One medical board said promoting the effectiveness of ivermectin was “dangerous and troubling and significantly threatened the public health”. Yet medical boards failed to take effective action against the offending doctors. Those doctors should have had their medical licenses either suspended or revoked!

    One of the principal responsibilities of government(s) is to protect public health. Covid-19 was an existential threat to that health. Over 1 million Americans died from Covid. Many of those deaths could have been prevented but for the widespread misinformation being spread by the anti-vax crowd on the right. That’s why the Biden administration cautioned social media platforms about posting Covid misinformation. They wanted to save lives. I think they should have done more of it!

    Well known professors of law at GWU School of Law, who have no medical license or other expertise about pandemics, should not be spreading misinformation about things they know nothing about. That does not come under the heading of “free speech”!

    1. In an effort to defend censorship, you exaggerate the risk presented by COVID (calling it ‘existential”). The CDC has created a table of COVID death rates in the United States. https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-Focus-on-Ages-0-18-Yea/nr4s-juj3 I believe that the table covers deaths from mid-2020 to mid-2023, The table seems to show total deaths of 1,136,052. Of this number, more than half (604,503) fall in the age group 75 years or older. For children under four years, only 776 deaths are reported. For the age group of 5-18, only 1071 are reported. For those between 19 and 44, only 44,690 deaths are reported. The bottom line seems to be that children and teenagers are virtually immune from COVID fatalities. Adults in their prime years only died at the rate of about 15,000 per year in a country of 350 million. COVID was never “existential” to publid health. It was another hoax, like Russiagate.
      You also play the “expert card” by saying that law professors “should not be spreading misinformation about things they know nothing about.” In other words, even highly intelligent laymen are not permitted to question the dictums of “experts”. But who are the experts? Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins, who the prime movers in creating this “existential threat to our public health”? How about the prestigious medical scientists who published a letter saying that the lab leak theory was bunk, but who now admit that they actually thought that the theory had merit. They explain their lies by saying that did not want to offend the Chinese government or to risk future grants from the NIH. We cannot trust anyone with our lives, especially “experts.” There is no refuge from the duty of all of us to listen, read, think, and form our own opinions about public issues.

      1. edwarmahl: It’s ironic you would cite CDC statistics to try to make your point–the very government health agency you and other anti-vaxers attacked because of its recommended pandemic restrictions. It was the CDC that called Covid an “existential” threat to public health. See also a NIH article on Covid entitled “Exploring the Existential Implications in Health Communication” (4/20/23) Over 1 million Americans died from Covid. But WHO indicates that as of 7/26/23 there have been 768,560,727 confirmed cases of Covid and 6,952,522 deaths . Only someone with their head buried in the sand could argue Covid was a “hoax”.

        Now I would agree we all have a duty to “listen, read, think and form our own opinions”. The Q is who do you listen to? JT and others who have no medical or scientific expertise? If you didn’t get fully vaccinated against Covid you were probably one of the lucky ones. I am over 80. I got fully vaccinated and it saved my life. The medical scientists say it is likely we will experience future pandemics–maybe even a more virulent virus than Covid. If you continue to refuse to follow the advice of the medical experts you will be playing with fire. I hope you have your estate plans and will in order!

        1. Dennis – I do not regard myself as an “anti-vaxer”
          which is a meaningless term since few of the people who question the COVID “vaccines” oppose real vaccines. I took the Pfizer vaccine and later contracted COVID three times at least, nws the assurances of some of the media salesmen for the medicine. No one knows what long term harm this novel drug will cause. You really have your head in the sand if you cannot see how government bureaucrats, esp Fauci, used the pandemic to hide their own part in creating the disease and to habituate the population to government control of their lives.

        2. So you “trust the science” is what you’re saying? you “trust Fauci”? you “trust the government”?
          No, you weren’t lied to, were you? Big Pharma saved you!
          Newslfash: they lied and they are still lying.

        3. “If you continue to refuse to follow the advice of the medical experts . . .”

          The “experts” at the CDC claimed that the vaccine prevented a person against contracting Covid, and prevented its spread. That was grossly false. What the Left calls “experts” are in fact propagandists who politicized Covid.

          Some of us do not need Big Brother to dictate which experts to obey and which to ignore.

          “. . . others who have no medical or scientific expertise?”

          As he dutifully dispenses medical “expertise.”

    2. I’ve read enough reports on masks to realize that only n95 masks truly have any chance of canceling out the virus all other masks are a joke when it comes to preventing the virus when you breathe in. As for Ivermectin that which was prescribed for human use was not the same dosage as they use for horses. And I personally know several people who took it and responded well to the covid-19 virus. There was also a county in India that prescribed it for everybody and a fatality rate was under 3%. Ivermectin was used a lot overseas because of his cheap cost compared to Pfizer or Moderno vaccines. You are true in saying that the virus is not proved to come from the Wuhan lab in China but that should be followed with the following information which was the Wuhan lab was studying coronaviruses, the second was the outbreak was in the area of the lab, and the third is that soon as the infection became known China quit sharing any information from the lab or from the area so I doubt if we’ll ever know for sure but I don’t believe in coincidence. I do believe the government has the right to make their case as to why something is correct but I do not believe they have the right to censor everything that they don’t agree with. This is one case where the government took it too far. As far as side effects from the vaccine you are right in stating they are few and as a percentage they are probably less than 1% for the younger age group however the same can be said for the total death from covid which in comparison to the whole population was still very small percentage. While side effects from the vaccine were few I’m sure that those few who died may have made a different decision if they knew they were at risk. And actually the government censoring everything that disagrees with their thinking is actually a case of free speech impingement.


        “The virus that causes COVID-19 is about 0.1 micrometer in diameter. (A micrometer (µm) is one one-thousandth of a millimeter.) The holes in woven cloth are visible to the naked eye and may be five to 200 micrometers in diameter. It is counter-intuitive that cloth can be useful in this setting — it’s been compared to putting up a chain-link fence to stop mosquitoes.”

        – The Conversation.com

    3. Your entire comment is built on a throne of lies. You might have thought about sprinkling a bit of truth in there somewhere. It would give your comment at least some (although very little) credibility. You are a troll and an idiot. A sad pathetic little thing who has no hope in life of succeeding at anything. Sad. So very sad!

    4. Dennis, Gigi and Fishwings all walk into a bar. The bartender asks, “what is this? Some kind of sick joke?”

    5. “Well known professors of law at GWU School of Law, who have no medical license or other expertise about pandemics, should not be spreading misinformation about things they know nothing about. That does not come under the heading of ‘free speech’!”

      Actually it does, you north end of a southbound mule.

    6. “Well known professors of law at GWU School of Law, who have no medical license or other expertise about pandemics, should not be spreading misinformation about things they know nothing about. That does not come under the heading of ‘free speech’!”

      Actually it does, you north end of a southbound mule.

    7. “The few people who had side effects from the vaccines were far and few between. And those side effects were mild compared to hospitalization and death from not getting vaccinated.”

      Says who? That is a lie and the government (CDC, FDA, NIH, etc.) knows it. The data was manipulated. The PCR test was fraud. They leveraged fear to coerce the public into taking the experimental shots. Financial incentives (kickbacks) were/are paid to doctors, hospital systems. Fauci knows all about it.

      The batches of covid vaccines varied greatly, they were not consistent from batch to batch, which is why some people did fine after their shots, and others had severe reactions and even died after taking the shots. Remember how they made you sit with a timer for 15 minutes? People died – from the vaccines. This is all part of the experiment. Which batches caused more cardiac events, deaths, which caused more neurological events, which batches were hot, which were not…..they were testing/experimenting on the public without any informed consent.

      You can enter your own vaccine batch numbers in this database and see for yourself.


      VAERS database showed clear safety signals early on. Any other product would have been pulled from the market straight away. But not this one. They went ahead and put it on the childhood vaccine schedule – not because 6 month old babies or children need it for *any reason* at all — no, it was added to provide liability protection for the vaccine manufacturers. Period.

      Watch: 1986 The Act.
      Watch: Vaxxed

      It will enlighten.
      This is what the government does not want you to know.
      So they will censor the truth-tellers, call it conspiracy theories, misinformation, disinformation, and lies.
      The government is the one lying.

      1. Thanks for the info, Upstate. The ignoramus said, “the epoch times….bahahahahahaha!!!” I want to ensure everyone knows that the MSM is mostly wrong while the Epoch Times is mostly correct. One cannot listen to this anonymous poster on the left, for his posts are almost always dumb. Fortunately, the clean-up crew comes and removes the trash.

  11. OT

    Fox News reported that the DOJ sent a letter to the fraud trial judge requesting that he order Devon Archer to report to prison.

    “Jeffrey Epstein II”

    “Arkancide, The Sequel”

    We’ve seen this movie before.

    Marbury vs. Madison was decided in 1803 establishing the power of Judicial Review.

    The judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court, must begin exercising its “…authority to determine the legitimacy of the acts of the executive and the legislative branches of government” to SAVE AMERICA.

    Judicial Review in the United States

    The legitimacy of judicial review and the judge’s approach to judicial review are discussed.

    The doctrine of judicial review holds that the courts are vested with the authority to determine the legitimacy of the acts of the executive and the legislative branches of government.

    – Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs

    Judicial Review in the United States

    In the United States, judicial review is the legal power of a court to determine if a statute, treaty, or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define the power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.[1]

    – Wiki

    1. Has the Supreme Court also been usurped and subsumed by the Global Communist Deep Deep State Swamp?

      Wait. Why did I doubt that?

      It’s actually all gone, isn’t it.

  12. Louis XVI had his cake baked on January 21, 1793 at the Place de la Revolution in Paris.

    I go back to time past when it was said “We take truth over facts” or something like that. Now it comes out that not only Twitter but Facebook, and who knows who else, may have adopted that mantra. We’re living in an Etymological Bureaucratized State where words have become armed with cancelation terror for improper interpretation according to the Bureaucrats new accepted meaning(S). Speech must be controlled to foster the Utopian Future envisioned by the Tyrants of today. We are losing control to these tyrants, a nip and tuck here or there are wasting away our freedoms. The state of affairs across America is in decline, where laws are ignored, and chaos abounds.

    God help US.

  13. Because Joe Biden is an empty vessel into which Democrat oligarchs have been funneling their policies and practices, he will most likely be replicated by the next Democrat selected by the oligarchs to be president. The only scenario under which someone other than Donald Trump could severely damage the Democrat oligarchy would be a sudden unraveling of the Biden-Garland crime syndicate sometime over the next six months, followed by a rush of Democrats to the side of RFK.

  14. Darren, I replied to our conversation from 2 days ago re: Twitter scripts and my observation of the blog pages loading slowly and creating a clunky experience. FYI

    1. Have you tried a ‘hard refresh browser’ technique?

      Dependent on your Operating System and Browser here is a graphic ‘How To’:

      Clearing your Local DNS may also solve your problem, this is more technical:

      Also Refresh or Re-Install your Browser or install another type of Browser.
      Try the Brave Browser: brave.com

  15. The Biden team wanted to install Scary Poppins into a position where she would have the power to censor people and to silence debate. When you ask “who us running the Biden WH” just remember that there are 100s of Scary Poppins out there (nobody ever heard of her before she and her appointment went viral) and the WH is staffed by all of these young people who have been taught that objectivity is violence.

    1. Remember before the internet when some people thought that the lack of access to information was the reason for ignorance in some?

      Yeah, Dennis proves that such was definitely not the problem.

Leave a Reply