Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

From the moment Elon Musk began musing about buying Twitter in 2022, the left began warning that his pledge to restore free speech to the social media platform was a threat to democracy. To most Americans this claim had a distinctly Orwellian ring and very few shared the fear that the platform could be used by bad actors to spread “disinformation” that would present a danger to the republic. What the left really feared, of course, was that Musk would reveal that Twitter was an integral part of the censorship-by-proxy strategy used by the government to silence inconvenient speech. And their worst nightmare came true when Musk released the notorious Twitter files. “[W]hether it’s Facebook or Twitter X … if they don’t moderate and monitor the content we lose total control.” Those revelations did not, however, stop people like Hillary Clinton from continuing their quest to impose censorship on the American people. As early as April of 2022, Clinton urged the EU to beef up its censorship regime: “For too long, tech platforms have amplified disinformation and extremism with no accountability. The EU is poised to do something about it. I urge our transatlantic allies to push the Digital Services Act across the finish line and bolster global democracy before it’s too late.” The EU took her advice. The Digital Services Act (DSA) was approved by the European Parliament in July of 2022 and went into effect in November of 2022. Inevitably, the very first DSA investigation targeted X. The European Commission has opened formal proceedings to assess whether X may have breached the Digital Services Act (DSA) in areas linked to risk management, content moderation, dark patterns, advertising transparency and data access for researchers … If proven, these failures would constitute infringements of Articles 34(1), 34(2) and 35(1), 16(5) and 16(6), 25(1), 39 and 40(12) of the DSA. The Commission will now carry out an in-depth investigation as a matter of priority. The opening of formal infringement proceedings does not prejudge its outcome. How is it possible for a federation of foreign countries like the EU to investigate and eventually fine an American corporation for $140 million based on a nebulous infraction like “transparency breaches”? According the European Commission’s website, “If the Commission definitely establishes a breach of the DSA, it may adopt a decision imposing fines up to 6 percent of the global turnover of the VLOP [Very Large Online Platform] or VLOSE [Very Large Online Search Engine] concerned, and order that provider to take measures to address the breach of the deadline set by the Commission.” The fine levied on X does not come to 6 percent of its “global turnover” but it is more than three times the amount Musk paid for X. Consequently, Musk was clearly less than pleased. In one X post he wrote, “The EU imposed this crazy fine not just on X but also on me personally, which is even more insane!” The fine levied against X also angered members of the Trump administration. Vice President JD Vance posted: “The EU should be supporting free speech not attacking American companies over garbage.” Secretary of state Marco Rubio posted: “The European Commission’s $140 million fine isn’t just an attack on X, it’s an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments. The days of censoring Americans online are over.” One of the DSA’s harshest critics, Michael Shellenberger, echoed Secretary Rubio’s point. Many Americans may rightly wonder why they should care about what the European government is doing. President Donald Trump shut down much of the U.S. censorship industrial complex, including by the DHS. The reason we should care is that the goal of the European Commission, like that of the governments of Britain, Brazil, and Australia, is to censor the American people … Moreover, the EU is now in direct violation of the NATO Treaty, under which the U.S. is militarily obligated to defend Europe. The NATO Treaty requires member states to have free speech. The DSA has been billed by its EU authors as a badly needed legal tool that will finally make it possible to render order out of the chaos that characterizes social media. Unfortunately, like the many censorship projects launched in the United States by the Biden administration, the DSA’s ostensible purpose is to “protect our democracy” from the seemingly omnipresent menace of disinformation, misinformation, malinformation and of course “hate speech.” Moreover, it can and does indirectly contrive to foist its draconian censorship regimen on the U.S. by demanding that large American-owned corporations such as Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft and X abide by its absurdly elastic terms. But what should worry us is its supporters. This brings us back to Hillary Clinton. In this clip, posted by Shellenberger, our erstwhile Secretary of State delivered herself of the following remarks: “We should be, in my view, repealing something called Section 230, which gave platforms on the internet immunity because they were thought to be just pass-throughs, that they shouldn’t be judged for the content that is posted. But we now know that was an overly simple view, that if the platforms, whether it’s Facebook or Twitter X … if they don’t moderate and monitor the content we lose total control.” That word “control” is the tell. Content moderation is censorship, and it’s always about controlling what people say and hear. All they want to hear from you is silence. READ MORE from David Catron: The Filibuster Must Be Euthanized Now The Marjorie Taylor Greene New Deal SCOTUS Must Stop Mail-In Voting Madness

In his brilliant book on the precariousness of Western Civilization, How to Save the West: Ancient Wisdom for 5 Modern Crises, scholar Spencer Klavan cites an epic historical change that took place in a single moment. It was the Visigoths burning the city of Rome in 410 AD, observed by Saint Jerome. “Who would believe that Rome would fall, she who had been built up by the conquest of the whole world?” Jerome wrote. Klavan captured the irony that evaded even the saint. “But even as he wrote these words, Jerome himself had already completed a Latin translation of the Bible which would serve as a foundation stone of Christendom in western Europe.” Then the movie men themselves betrayed the industry. They let politics replace art, and feminists replace filmmakers. Two transformative events last week made me feel a bit like Saint Jerome, minus the sanctity and the city-torching barbarians — and I’m writing this on the 84th anniversary of another cataclysmic instance in time, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. One was the European Union imposing a €120-million fine on Elon Musk for essentially refusing to censor posts on X. The other was Netflix’s purchase of Warner Brothers for over $82 billion. Both signify the further fall of something great into virtual rubble. In truth, Europe — Britain very much included — has been in a state of collapse for the entire 21st century, tragically succumbing to a destructive force which it had heroically defeated — communism. After the 1917 Russian Revolution made Marxism a global menace to freedom, western Europe took the right side of the Cold War and survived formidable Soviet threats. They included the Hamburg Uprising (1923), the NKVD in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), the Iron Curtain on Eastern Europe and East Germany (1945-1989), and the Cambridge spy ring inside British Intelligence (exposed in 1963 but active for 30 years). The fictionalized counter to these threats elevated English literature for the latter half of the last century through the works of new masters of the spy genre: Ian Fleming, John le Carré, Len Deighton, Tom Clancy, and Charles McCarry. Their heroes and their real-life counterparts were fighting not just what Reagan called “an evil empire” militarily, but its evil ideology — whose greatest weapon was communication dominance and the quashing of any other. Europe overcame this abomination in the ’80s — led by lions Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and John Paul II — only to embrace it now. EU leaders are publicly justifying their fine on Musk by citing fraudulent verification badges that invite scams and fraud. But anyone with a brain, like Elon Musk, knows the real reason for their lashing out is fear. The dread that X can penetrate their statist blockade on noncompliant speech, which they label “hate speech” or “disinformation.” And when German police arrest a 42-year-old teacher for referring to a “trans” Wiesbaden city-council member on X as “he,” and stating “men cannot be lesbians,” it’s clear Europe has entered The Gulag Archipelago territory. The EU leaders first tried to recruit Musk’s voluntary cooperation last year. Musk not only refused but blew the whistle on them — and his more cowardly competitors — on X of course: “The European Commission offered X an illegal secret deal: if we quietly censored speech without telling anyone, they would not fine us. The other platforms accepted that deal. X did not.” So they switched to financial punishment, which will have the same embarrassing result. Because while the EU governments and the UK are led by socialist progressive dupes, the USA no longer is. And Vice President J. D. Vance rapidly responded to the EU move, on X of course. “Rumors swirling that the EU commission will fine X hundreds of millions of dollars for not engaging in censorship. The EU should be supporting free speech not attacking American companies over garbage.” I suspect the fine on Musk will fall before Europe does. Which brings us to Hollywood — what’s left of it. As I’ve written here before, the motion picture studio system, which lasted 50 years (1920 -1970), was the most economical and artistically prolific entertainment factory in history. Every studio had its own character and forte — MGM — glamor and musicals, Paramount — comedy, Warner Bros — tough guys (Bogart, Cagney) and women (Bette Davis, later Joan Crawford), Universal — monsters, 20th Century Fox — witty drama, later widescreen epics and melodrama. Even later, to the end of the century, the corporations that bought the studios left the men who knew movies in charge of them. It would never have occurred to a Gulf & Western executive in 1972 to tell Paramount head Robert Evans who to cast in The Godfather. The symbiosis endured through the 00s, yielding fine pictures like The Lord of the Rings saga, Mulholland Drive, Taken, and Tropic Thunder. Then the movie men themselves betrayed the industry. They let politics replace art, and feminists replace filmmakers. For 20 years they have done worse than produce nothing of value. They destroyed the creations that built their jobs, because in their mind, they attracted the wrong crowd — sexist, racist, toxic white males. Now a soulless inartistic studio has bought a soulless inartistic industry. But perhaps, like Saint Jerome, I — and other writers like me — have laid down the foundation for the future, at least of the screen trade. READ MORE from Lou Aguilar: Carols in a Time of Chaos A Great American Thanksgiving WATCH: The Spectacle Ep. 300: Why Movies Suck: Screenwriter Lou Aguilar Tells the Story Here’s a lovely new review of my popular Yuletide romantic ghost story, The Christmas Spirit, and why it’s the perfect Christmas gift for your significant other. Available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or wherever fine books are still sold.

Congratulations to Indiana University for a huge, historic victory over the seemingly invincible Ohio State Buckeyes in a great game on Saturday night. With the win, the Hoosiers take the Big 10 for the first time since 1967 and — even more significant — supplant the Buckeyes for the number one ranking in college football. They had not defeated the Buckeyes since 1988 —going 0 for 30 against OSU in that period. Yes, the Indiana Hoosiers, known for decades for basketball and sports like swimming, but notorious for being lousy at football, end the college football regular season at no. 1. That’s the university’s first-ever no. 1 ranking. As for Mendoza, he was terrific, especially with a big-time long completion to his roommate wide receiver Charlie Becker to put the game away. It’s only the third time ever that Indiana has won the Big Ten, the previous two occasions being 1967 and 1945. The triumph for the Hoosiers is notable for The American Spectator, which was founded by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. and friends on the Bloomington campus in 1967. Indeed, I was struck by that irony when I read the graphic on the TV screen when the game ended. It declared: Last Time Indiana Won Big Title, 1967 Season: Coach Curt Cignetti: 6 Years Old In Theaters: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Did Not Exist: Personal Computers I couldn’t help but add my own: “The American Spectator founded on IU campus.” The game was an all-around terrific effort by the Hoosiers, who played the best team in football right down to the wire. We knew IU’s offense was good, but the defense performed better than I expected against a juggernaut. They really proved themselves. The big win and big season are a major credit to Heisman candidate quarterback Fernando Mendoza and coach Curt Cignetti. The two have turned around the program, especially Cignetti. This is now Cignetti’s second straight season winning Big Ten Coach of the Year — in as many seasons. In two splendid, unprecedented seasons for IU’s program. With a staggering 24 wins thus far in his first two years, Cignetti has tied the Big Ten record for most wins in first two seasons for a coach (along with OSU’s Urban Meyer). His rise has been meteoric, stunning, and has captured the football world’s attention. I personally feel a bond to Cignetti. We were both born in Pittsburgh (him five years before me), and his first coaching job out of college at West Virginia University, where he was a quarterback (1979-82), was at the University of Pittsburgh (my alma mater). He left Pitt shortly before I arrived there. He developed his excellent coaching skills not far from there in the town of Indiana (ironically), Pennsylvania, which is the hometown of legendary actor Jimmy Stewart. There at Indiana University of Pennsylvania (what we call IUP) — a D-II powerhouse — he coached for several seasons before moving up the ladder and eventually taking the job at Indiana University in Bloomington. As for Mendoza, he was terrific, especially with a big-time long completion to his roommate wide receiver Charlie Becker to put the game away in the closing possession. Mendoza was not only grateful after the game but emotional, and spiritual. The first words out of his mouth through his tears of joy gave praise and credit to God. Mendoza’s burst of emotion was certainly due. The closing minutes of the contest were riveting — just terrific football. I would say it was terrific television, too, but Fox did its best to crush the drama by slavishly and egregiously dashing to commercial breaks at every possible opportunity. In the last two minutes or so of regulation, OSU used each of its three timeouts. Each time it did so, the stupid Fox crew immediately broke away from the aura and action to repeat the next queue of commercials. Viewers were aching to see what was happening inside the stadium and get commentary. Instead, Fox moronically broke away to mindless ads every time. Of all the TV networks that cover football, Fox is the very worst at that. Shame on them. They don’t deserve the games they get to cover. But try as it might, Fox couldn’t kill the excitement of a fabulous football game on Saturday night between the Hoosiers and Buckeyes. Now the college football playoffs begin, and IU is seeking the first national title in the history of its football program. Best of luck to Cignetti and his squad. Our TAS Hoosiers, alumni Bob Tyrrell and Wlady Pleszczynski, will be cheering hard for them. READ MORE from Paul Kengor: The NFL’s ‘Criminal Element’: Remembering the Raiders–Steelers Rivalry of the 1970s My Planned Parenthood Turkeys Maximilian Kolbe’s Triumph at Auschwitz  

The Supreme Court has just granted certiorari in the case of Barbara v. United States which raises the issue of birthright citizenship. The case arose because on his first day of resuming the presidency, Mr. Trump signed an executive order that banned birthright citizenship for, among others, the children of illegal aliens. We know how the liberals on the Supreme Court will vote…. It may well come down to how the weaker conservatives vote. The 14th Amendment was ratified by the states in 1868 during the aftermath of the Civil War. Its primary intent was to ensure that no states passed laws that would question the citizenship of freed slaves or their children. The first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.” The president’s order says, in part: Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States:  (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth. Many are critical of Trump’s order, saying it violates the 14th Amendment and federal law. But does it? The Supreme Court usually grants certiorari only in cases where there is a disagreement among the federal circuit courts, where there is a similar disagreement among the state courts, or where the case is of particular interest. Barbara v. US is of particular interest because of Trump’s executive order. The last time the Supreme Court squarely addressed the birthright citizenship issue was back in 1898 in the case of US v. Wong Kim Ark. That case was different from Barbara v. US and the key difference is also the reason the president may win the new case. Wong Kim Ark was born in California in 1873. At all relevant times, his parents were running a business in California. They were not U.S. citizens and were unable to obtain citizenship because of the Chinese Exclusion Acts of that period. They were never outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Moreover, the parents were not diplomatic personnel employed by China’s  emperor. Wong Kim Ark was a laborer. He returned to China in 1890 and again in 1895 on visits that would return him to the U.S. those same years. And there we have the key difference between the Wong Kim Ark and Barbara cases: in Wong Kim Ark, his parents were here legally and in the Barbara case, they were not. And that difference is what the U.S. Solicitor General will hang his hat on. That should be conclusive but for the language of the 14th Amendment that says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” What persons are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? As the 14th Amendment implies, and courts have affirmed, anyone who is the child of a person who has diplomatic status in this country, or is part of an invading army, is not subject to our jurisdiction and thus cannot claim American citizenship. But people who are not legally in the U.S. are routinely tried and, if convicted, sent to jail in the U.S. But does this mean such people are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as that phrase is used in the 14th Amendment? So the question in Barbara v. US can be resolved either way. A person who is born to illegal aliens should — by virtue of their illegal presence in the U.S. — not be counted as a citizen. It will depend on the justices’ determination of what the word “jurisdiction” means in the 14th Amendment. We know how the liberals on the Supreme Court will vote. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson will seek to affirm that birthright citizenship includes the children of illegal aliens. It may well come down to how the weaker conservatives vote. If Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett vote with the liberals, we will continue to have the children of illegal aliens as U.S. citizens. READ MORE from Jed Babbin: Erasing Old Joe Striking the Unknown William F. Buckley, Jr. and Tucker Carlson