The Trump-Vance campaign has announced a "believers coalition" to engage the American faith community and motivate Christian voters.

'$3 trillion in new capital'

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. President Donald Trump has been quite vocal about central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) lately, and today was no exception. In his speech at the Bitcoin 2024 conference in Nashville, he made his stance crystal clear. He said, “There will never be a CBDC while I am president.” This statement echoes his previous comments on the matter, where he has consistently expressed strong opposition to the idea of a CBDC. He believes that such a currency would give the government too much control over people’s money and could potentially lead to financial tyranny. Related: CBDC Catastrophe: Tech Failures Expose a Fragile, Dystopian Future Trump’s views on CBDCs seem to be part of a broader narrative that he’s building around protecting individual freedoms and liberties. It’s a message that resonates with many in the cryptocurrency community, who see digital currencies as a way to decentralize power and reduce government control. Trump has previously called CBDCs a “dangerous threat to freedom.” Trump’s firm stance underscores the escalating discussions surrounding CBDCs, a significant matter among global governmental bodies. To date, only a few countries have officially adopted such currencies. However, the digital currency landscape continues to evolve, with China advancing the implementation of its digital yuan, India progressing towards a digital rupee, and the European Central Bank initiating a preparatory phase for a potential digital euro. CBDCs represent a significant evolution in the architecture of money. These digital forms of fiat currency, issued and regulated by a country’s central bank, promise enhanced efficiency in transactions and greater financial inclusion. However, they also pose potential risks to civil liberties that merit careful consideration. Here are some of the primary concerns: 1. Privacy CBDCs could fundamentally alter the landscape of financial privacy. Traditional cash transactions allow for anonymity. With CBDCs, even small transactions might be traceable and recordable by the central bank. This could lead to a scenario where governments have access to detailed records of every individual’s financial life, raising significant privacy concerns unless robust safeguards are implemented. 2. Surveillance The transition to a fully digital currency could potentially give governments unprecedented capabilities to monitor and surveil citizen behaviors. In regimes with weaker protections for civil liberties, this could be exploited to track political dissent or suppress opposition. The potential for surveillance not only impacts privacy but also freedom of expression and association. 3. Financial Censorship With the centralization of currency issuance and transaction management, a CBDC could make it easier for governments to implement financial sanctions against individuals or groups without due process. Accounts could be frozen or transactions blocked more efficiently, which could be used as a tool for political repression or social control. 4. Exclusion Despite the potential for greater financial inclusion, the reliance on digital infrastructure might marginalize those without access to technology or reliable internet, such as rural populations or the economically disadvantaged. This could exacerbate existing inequalities and restrict access to essential services for those on the fringes of the digital economy. 5. Cybersecurity Risks The concentration of financial data in a central digital system increases the risk of systemic failures due to cyberattacks. A successful attack could compromise the integrity of a nation’s entire financial system. Moreover, the implications of such attacks extend beyond economic damage to potentially crippling impacts on individual financial security and privacy. 6. Centralization of Power CBDCs concentrate monetary control significantly. This centralization of financial power could reduce the checks and balances provided by a more distributed banking system, increasing the potential for abuse by those in power, particularly in undemocratic regimes. 7. Legal and Ethical Implications The implementation of CBDCs raises several legal and ethical questions, including the scope of government intervention in personal finances, the rights of individuals under a digital currency system, and the balance between national security and personal freedoms. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Trump’s Fiery Speech in Nashville: CBDCs are a Threat to Liberty appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

A pro-life activist is taking advantage of an anti-censorship law in Florida to take on one of the biggest and most tyrannical of Big Tech companies. Represented by the Thomas More Society, Trudy Perez-Poveda is suing Google and challenging the tech giant’s decision to suddenly deplatform and block her access to Gmail and other Google apps. Just prior to the ban, the 76-year-old had used her Google account to share information about a pro-life event. The Thomas More Society noted in a recent release about the suit that Perez-Poveda is able to sue Google thanks to a free speech law in Florida that was recently challenged at the U.S. Supreme Court in Moody v. Net Choice. The censorship happened shortly after Perez-Poveda had used Gmail for her pro-life work: “An hour after she emailed members of her pro-life group to join her for a Catholic Mass and prayer gathering in front of a Jacksonville abortion clinic,” the Thomas More Society explained. Google then abruptly blocked the pro-life advocate from accessing more than a decade of her personal data, including emails, contacts, photographs and calendars. The Society reported that Google initially gave Perez-Poveda no explanation. Google’s actions are in violation of Florida law which requires a prompt and complete explanation of censorship against private users, or the users can sue. According to the release, Google gave Perez-Poveda a belated and vague explanation, claiming she had allegedly violated its “Acceptable Use Policies.” However, the tech company did not specify how the pro-life activist had violated the policy, despite her multiple requests for more information. She and the Thomas More Society are insisting Google return her “property.” Perez-Poveda explained in a statement what it felt like to have her email access and personal information gone in one fell swoop. “It felt like coming home to a house, which took me twelve years to furnish with family mementos and treasures, and find it completely empty without even a note explaining why,” she said.  Thomas More Society Senior Counsel Matt Heffron also commented on the prevalence of censorship and the severity of this assault on freedom of speech. “There is an ominous growth of censorship in this country. Large social-media companies act as a ‘digital public square,’ and play a central role in the debate of ideas. Our case, Trudy v. Google, is part of the urgent and overdue pushback against this rising tide of censorship.” The Supreme Court punted on a major decision in the case involving the Florida law, Moody v. Net Choice, sending the decision back to lower courts, though it acknowledged potential free speech concerns. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using MRC Free Speech America’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

After dropping out of the 2024 presidential election on Sunday, President Joe Biden has finally addressed the nation from the Oval Office. During his address, the president made it clear that he is ready to launch radical reforms of the Supreme Court with his remaining time in office. MSNBC’s Jen Psaki is thrilled. “The other thing that struck me, and I circled it, when he talked about reforming the Supreme Court,” Psaki said on a panel. “All you all know this is not a phrase that would have come out of the mouth of President Joe Biden even while he’s been President Joe Biden.” “It was a reminder, I think, that leadership is about being consistent and people knowing what to expect from you. It’s about being open to evolving,” Psaki added. Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” has heard enough. “They’re saying the quiet part out loud,” Rubin comments to David Sacks. “Joe Biden himself, if his brain was still in his head, would never be for expanding the Supreme Court. But he’s handing the reins away, and she’s basically saying that’s exactly what Kamala is going to do.” Sacks notes that Elizabeth Warren and others like her have been “openly tweeting that they want to pack the Supreme Court.” “They’re saying that’s a good idea. It’s transparent,” Sacks says. “Packing the Supreme Court, first of all, would destroy the Supreme Court.” “It’s one of the last functioning institutions in our democracy, and they want to undermine and destroy it,” he adds. Want more from Dave Rubin?To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Radicals Hire Radicals: Harris Campaign Graphic Designer Has History of Calling for Political Violence