Free speech online is “imperiled” by a Texas law requiring multinational pornography websites to verify that their users are at least 18 years old, the lawyer representing them at the Supreme Court said Wednesday. Most of the Supreme Court justices seemed skeptical, although the pornographers appeared to have found two zealous defenders on the bench. Pornography companies don’t want to have to verify their users’ ages because they fear that it will “burden” their users’ ability to look at porn, which the Supreme Court has held is “protected free speech.” Texas, meanwhile, knows that porn is bad for people, especially children, and that children can get easy access to it through the high-speed internet connections on their computers, phones, and video game consoles. Knowing that the Supreme Court protects adults’ ability to view porn, Texas allows adults to visit those websites, provided they verify their age. Texas’ law is like an old New York law that made it illegal to sell pornographic magazines to children. In 1969, the Supreme Court upheld that law in a case called Ginsberg v. New York on the grounds that it was “not irrational” for the state to protect children from the harm of pornography by making sellers verify the age of purchasers. Of course, when the court decided Ginsberg back in 1969, there was no internet. To get pornography, you had to buy it in hard copy from a brick-and-mortar retail store. Texas argued that its law is just “the digital version of Ginsberg,” but the pornographers argued that it’s not so simple. Ginsberg, they said, imposed no restrictions on adults. Or, if it did, the restrictions were very minor and temporary. But Texas’ law requires porn viewers to give identifying information online where it might exist forever and get hacked. Besides, the pornographers argued, the court’s internet-era cases hold that regulations of online porn should get the strictest judicial scrutiny. States must do much more than show that their law is “not irrational”: They must show that it is “narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest.” And Texas’ law, they argued, is not narrowly tailored because age-verification “chills” access to pornographic free speech. The justices seemed more favorable to Texas. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett were highly skeptical of the pornographers’ claim that what Texas should have done instead of age-verification is “educate parents” about how to put filtering programs on all their internet-connected devices. Thomas pressed the pornographers’ lawyer to identify any sort of age-verification requirement that would pass muster, but he could not or would not. Barrett suggested that content filtering was not a realistic solution. “Kids can get online porn through gaming systems, tablets, phones, computers,” she said, “content filtering for all those different devices, I can say from personal experience, is difficult to keep up with. And I think the explosion of addiction to online porn has shown that content filtering isn’t working.” Alito drew the audience’s laughter by asking, “Do you know a lot of parents who are more tech-savvy than their 15-year-old children?” Justices Neil Gorsuch, Elena Kagan, and Brett Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice John Roberts also threw hard questions at the pornographers’ lawyer. Gorsuch, for example, challenged his argument that lots of nonpornographic material would also be hidden behind age-verification by getting him to concede that one of the websites he represents, PornHub, is “probably” at least 70% hard-core porn. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, on the other hand, rushed to the pornographers’ defense, twice interrupting Alito’s tough questioning. She asked the pornographers’ lawyer to confirm that lots of case law supports his argument and called Alito’s questions about Ginsberg’s applicability “a tangent.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also defended the pornographers, offering their lawyer the opportunity to rescind a concession that he had made to Kavanaugh and a way to try to distance this case from Ginsberg. As a fallback position, the pornographers argued that Texas’ law was motivated at least in part by a desire to stop adults from getting access to pornography, but that claim found not a single sympathetic justice. The federal government took a middle position. The government’s lawyer argued that strict scrutiny should apply, but that Texas’ law might survive after the lower courts answer certain factual questions about how age-verification would work in practice.   Barrett, Roberts, and to some degree Kagan questioned whether a lower level of scrutiny might be appropriate. Jackson, meanwhile, worried that age-verification would heighten the “risks and burdens” to the privacy of adults who want access to porn. By the time Texas’ solicitor general took the podium, the tide of argument seemed to be in his favor. Texas’ law, he said, is just Ginsberg for the internet age. And under Ginsberg, if the law performs a “gatekeeping” function keeping minors away from hard-core pornography, then an “incidental” burden on adult speech is permissible if it is “not irrational.”  Alternatively, he invited the court to read Ginsberg as holding that an ID-requirement to access porn was not a “constitutionally cognizable burden,” as the court has held in the voting rights context. Texas’ lawyer conceded, however, that if a state overburdened adults with layers of age-verification measures, then courts could apply stricter scrutiny.  Kagan noted that it was unusual for the degree of the burden to determine the level of scrutiny. Texas’ lawyer, with some assistance from Kavanaugh, answered that this anomaly was a byproduct of the fact that the court treats the same speech as being protected by First Amendment for adults, but unprotected for children. By the end of the argument, it seemed that Texas had more justices on its side. That said, it’s almost certain that the case will not end here. The Supreme Court might articulate the appropriate standard of judicial scrutiny but return the case to the lower courts to apply it.   That would inevitably require more litigation and perhaps another trip to the Supreme Court. The post Justices Skeptical of Porn Websites’ First Amendment Claims in Age-Verification Challenge appeared first on The Daily Signal.

President-elect Donald Trump is expected to sign a slew of executive order on his first day in office, including multiple that pertain to securing America’s southern border with Mexico.  “I think people are going to be pleased with the executive orders he is going to sign,” Tom Homan, Trump’s border czar, told “The Daily Signal Podcast,” adding, “I’m familiar with many of them, but I’m not going to get ahead of the president on that.” Homan, who served as acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement under Trump from January 2017 to June 2018, said he expects the president to “go back to what was successful” at the border during his first administration. “We go back to Remain in Mexico, [safe third country agreements], end catch and release, continue building that wall,” Homan said.  While many Americans who voted for Trump will likely be pleased with the president’s actions to secure the border, Trump’s border and immigration agenda will also be met with resistance, Homan predicts.  “I think we’re going to take a lot of hate,” he said. “We’re going to be sued every day, numerous times. I think you’ll see the Left try to control the media. They’re going to show the first crying female, first crying child, and say how inhumane we are. But they won’t to talk about the 340,000 children that they’ve failed to take care of,” Homan said, presumably referring to the Biden administration. In August, ICE reported that it does not know the location or status of more than 300,000 migrant children. Between fiscal year 2019 and 2023, 32,000 illegal alien minors did not appear for their immigration court hearing, and an additional 291,000 were never given an immigration court date. “ICE has no assurance UCs (unaccompanied migrant children) are safe from trafficking, exploitation, or forced labor,” Inspector General Joseph Cuffari’s report said. The leftist corporate media will “tell one side of the story,” Homan said. “they’ll try to vilify us, but they’re not going to stop us from doing [our] job.”  After what he has witnessed while serving both as a Border Patrol agent and in ICE, Homan says he does not care what the media says about him.  “If they saw what I saw in 34 years, all the tragedies I’ve dealt with in 34 years, they would certainly understand me. They may not still like me, but there’s a reason why we do what we do. I’m tired of women being raped, making that journey. I’m tired of dead children. I’m tired of women and children being sex trafficked.”  Mexico’s criminal cartels, according to Homan, are “making more money than they’ve ever made in smuggling aliens, trafficking in women and children, and moving dope. So, hate all you want, push the misinformation out all you want, we’re not going to slow down. We’re not going to go away. We’re going to get this done.”  Homan joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” for a special bonus edition to discuss the resources the Trump administration will need to carry out deportations of illegal aliens, and what information he expects to be uncovered regarding the Biden administration’s handling of the southern border.  Listen to the podcast below or read the full transcript: Virginia Allen: Mr. Homan, thanks for taking the time to be here today. Tom Homan: Thanks for the invite. Allen: What did the president say to you when he called you and asked you to serve in his administration?  Homan: Well, we’ve talked all through the campaign. So, he knew that if he called on me, I’d take the job. So, he knew what the answer was before he even called me. But he called me on Friday night and we talked about me. I’ve been complaining about the border for four years, so he’s given me an opportunity to come back and fix it. How do you say “no” to that? Look, I think President [Donald] Trump is a game-changer. We had the most success, most secure border in my lifetime under President Trump. And it went from the most secure border to historically legal immigration. So, when he called me, I was ready to go. He didn’t even have to ask, but he did. I immediately said “yes,” and then we started describing the position and what my responsibilities were and I said, “Game in, let’s do it. Game on.” And a couple days later he announced it and we’re ready to go. Allen: One of the first things that you and the president have agreed will be a top priority is deportations and specifically deporting criminal illegal aliens. That costs a lot of money, right? [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] is going to need money in order to carry out these deportations. And right now we’ve seen that the Biden administration seems to have made it almost like their mission to spend as much money as possible before leaving office. What do you expect to find when you get in there on Day One? What kind of resources do you think you’re going to have available in order to carry out these deportations? Homan: Well, not enough resources to do what I want to do, but we’re going to take whatever resources we have. We’re going to start on Day One and we’re going to start the deportation operation. We’re going to secure the border and we’re going to find, look to find over 300,000 children that were smuggled into the country and released by the sponsors. So, Day One it starts, we’re going to do as much as you can with what we got. And I think Congress will fund us going forward at an appropriate level to make sure we answer the mandate given by the American people. Secure border immigration enforcement was the No. 1 issue affecting voters. So, they want it fixed. So, we’re going to get it fixed. We’re going to do everything we can with what we have. And you’re right, they’re sabotaging this coming in, but it’s not going to stop us. We’re going to get this done. Allen: Have you been having conversations with members of Congress about the funding that ICE is going to need? Congress is pretty used to shifting funds toward [Customs and Border Protection] but not as used to increasing those funds that ICE needs. Are members pretty open?  Homan: Yeah, I’ve had numerous conversations with people in the House and the Senate. They understand the need for funding. A lot of people complain it’s going to be an expensive operation and it is. But we’re spending much more than that now in perpetuity between free airline tickets, free hotel rooms, free medical care, what it’s done to our school system, what it’s done to our medical trauma centers and hospitals, and that’s in perpetuity.  So yeah, it’s going to be an expensive operation, but in the long run would be a tax savings for American people. And that’s the conversation I’ve been having with members on the Hill. Yeah, it’s expensive, we need the money. But guess what? In the long run, this will cost savings. Allen: Yeah, big bill upfront, much cheaper in the long run. Homan: Right. Allen: How quickly do you anticipate deportation starting? Homan: Day One, [Jan.] 21. ICE agents will be out doing their job or going to take the handcuffs off ICE and put them on the bad guys. And we’ve been real clear that right out of the gate we’re concentrating on public safety threats and security threats, but no one’s off the table. If … you’re in the United States illegal, you got a problem. But we realize that we got to do the worst first and that’s what we’re going to do. Allen: How do you handle states like California that have put together a slush fund of $25 million in order to provide legal services to illegal aliens to help them avoid deportation? Homan: Well, they’re not going to stop us from doing their job. They’re just going to make it harder. It’s going to be less efficient. It’s going to be more costly to do a job in a sanctuary city. I still find amazing—because, like I just said, we’re going to concentrate on public safety threats and national security threats—how any elected representative, whether you’re a mayor or a city, a governor, wouldn’t want to push back on removing public safety threats from your communities and making the community safer. I thought that was the No. 1 responsibility—protection of the communities.  Look, they can put up any roadblocks they want. We’re going to get this job done. It’ll be harder to do it, but we’re going to do it. So, we’re not afraid of hard work. It’s more important we protect the national security of this nation and take public safety threats off the street. How many more young women have to be raped and murdered and burned alive before this country wakes up the left side of the country, wakes up and realizes that this isn’t a bad thing? This is about enforcing the law and protecting our public safety. Allen: I think a lot of people don’t realize that this conversation really also is about protecting the lives of those migrants and ensuring that those who have been exploited by the cartels are no longer exploited.  Homan: That’s what people need to understand. Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime. Studies have been done where one-third of the women that make that journey through cartels get sexually assaulted. One-third admitted it. So, how many is the actual number, right? We know aliens die on the border every day. A historic number of aliens have died under the Biden administration. Historic number of Americans have died of fentanyl because of the open border. So, a secure border saves lives. No one can argue [with] that. When President Trump had 90% less people coming, how many women weren’t being sexually assaulted? How many aliens hadn’t died making that journey? How many Americans didn’t die from drug overdoses because borders locked down? So, secure borders save lives and that’s where we’re going to push. Allen: Regarding unaccompanied children and sex trafficking and the exploitation of those kids, what do you expect to find when you get into that position as border czar? Is there a lot more information that you think is going to be discovered about what exactly has happened to these young people? Homan: We need to have access to everything [the Office of Refugee Resettlement] has done. We’re going to need the records of what sponsors these children were released to. Many whistleblowers from ORR have already said that sponsors weren’t all fingerprinted. The identifications weren’t always verified. So, it’s going to be a hard job. Out of all the three things that I’m leading—the border, the immigration/deportation, and the children—the children can be most difficult because you and I, and most adults, all adults, have a footprint, digital footprint. We own a home, own a car, we pay bills, we pay utilities, we have credits, so we all can be found. Children don’t have that kind of footprint, which means we got to use a footprint, digital footprint, of the sponsors, but the records are poor or not existing. It’s going to make them harder.  But what we’re going to find is many of these children, when we find them, are going to be in forced labor. Some will be in forced sex trafficking, sex slavery, not all of them, some of them will be safe. But we got to find these children, make sure they are safe and rescued because many of them are living a life of hell and we got to rescue these children. We’ll deal with the immigration consequences after the fact. But right now we got to save these children, find them and save them. Allen: Well, like you said, we’re literally talking about hundreds of thousands of kids here that we don’t know where they are. So if they don’t have that footprint, what does Step One look like in actually finding these kids? Homan: Well, there’s ways I’m not going to discuss on air because it’s law enforcement-sensitive. We have our ways, our methods to do that. But one of the things we’re going to do is count on American people. Parents across the country have an innate ability to recognize when something’s not right with a child. So, we’re going to ask people to see something, say something, give us some leads. You may know where some of these children are at. You may have friends that know that some of these children were placed and looking for the public’s help. We deputize every American citizen to help us rescue these children. So, there’ll be more coming on that. But we’re going to reach out to the communities and we’ll reach out to the private sector—we’ve done a lot of this work already—and make a partnership with the private sector. Allen: There’s a lot that we don’t know about what happened under the Biden administration when it comes to conversations that were had about the border behind closed doors, money that was funneled into nongovernmental organizations that really allowed for this crisis to take place. Are those things going to come out?  Homan: That’s all also going to be investigated. What role did U.N. play of immigration? What role did they play? What role did the NGOs play? Were they involved in coordinating? Were they complicit in international building immigration? How did the NGOs get funded? Who funded them? How was that money spent? So, all of this will be looked at with a new administration to make sure that American people have the truth and see what happened to their tax dollars and why this happened. Why did they choose to unsecure the border on purpose? What was the reason behind that? So, all that’s going to be looked at. Allen: There’s going to be a number of executive orders that are signed on Day One, including those having to deal with the border and immigration. What executive orders would you like to see the president sign on Day One? Homan: Well, look, I think people are going to be pleased with the executive orders he is going to sign. I’m familiar with many of them, but I’m not going to get ahead of the president on that. But I think we go back to what was successful, right? During the Trump administration, we have the most secure border in my lifetime. So, we go back to “Remain in Mexico,” third safe country agreements, end catch and release, continue building that wall, things that we prove work.  We had the most secure border in our lifetime because of President Trump and what he’s done with out-of-the-box thinking. And they were game-changers. Remain in Mexico was a game-changer. After about 60 days, people stopped giving the criminal cartels everything they’ve ever had in their life, everything they’ve owned to be smuggled into the United States. And after they saw they weren’t being released into the United States during Remain in Mexico, they stopped coming. And when they stopped coming, they stopped spending their life savings, giving it to the criminal cartel. They stopped dying entering the country. They stopped being sexually assaulted into this country. Cartels sell them a bag of goods: “We’ll get to the United States, you can claim asylum,” but they never tell them that 90% of those asylum claims end up with an order of removal. So, I suspect what you’re going to see is President Trump dusting off a lot of what we did in the first administration because they were proven effective and put them back in place. Allen: And even those that under the Biden administration have received those removal orders, correct me if I’m wrong, but we know a lot of those folks, they’re still here.  Homan: We got 1.4 million right now, illegal aliens who had due process at great taxpayer expense and were ordered removed and did not leave. They became a fugitive. And I say this, the people that are saying this is a terrible, terrible operation, it’s inhumane, whatever—I hear it all. You can’t demand the right to claim asylum and see a judge. You can’t demand the right to due process. And at the end of that due process, a judge makes the decision. You got to uphold those decisions. If we don’t, then what the hell are we doing? If the due process doesn’t mean anything, if the final decision of the court isn’t handed down and executed, then what are we doing? You might as well just shut down immigration courts because the judges’ orders don’t mean anything. Take the Border Patrol off the border because there’s no consequences. So no, you can’t demand or create a historic illegal immigration crisis and not follow through with the decisions. You want to see a judge. We’ll make that happen. You want to claim asylum. We will make that happen. But at the end of that game, when … the judge orders them removed, we have to remove them. That’s what the law requires. Allen: What do you expect to see a year from now? What’s the situation going to look like? Homan: I think we will take a lot of hate. We’re going to be sued every day, numerous times. I think you’ll see the Left try to control the media. They’re going to show the first crying female, first crying child, and say how inhumane we are. But they won’t talk about 340,000 children that they’ve failed to take care of. They’re not going to talk about the young women who have been murdered in this country at the hands of criminal cartels. They’re not going to talk about the hundreds of angel moms and dads who buried their children. You want to talk about family separation? They buried their children because their children were killed by a member of a criminal cartel or someone that’s not supposed to be here. They’ll tell one side of the story. They’ll try to vilify, but they’re not going to stop us doing our job. I don’t care what the media says about me. If they saw what I saw in 34 years, saw the tragedies I’ve dealt with in 34 years, they would certainly understand me. They may not still like me, but there’s a reason why we do what we do. I’m tired of women being raped making that journey. I’m tired of dead children. I’m tired of women and children being sex trafficked. On this administration, sex trafficking is up 600% on women and children. We have a record number of people on the terrorist watchlist being arrested. Historic record, 3,500% increase. Record number of Americans dying of fentanyl. We got a record number of cartel members that have entered this country. The criminal cartels in Mexico are making more money than they’ve ever made in smuggling aliens, trafficking of women and children, and moving dope. So, hate all you want. Push the misinformation out all you want. We’re not going to slow down. We’re not going to go away. We’re going to get this done. Allen: Over 30 years of service for you of working to secure the border, of working to protect the border. Many people wouldn’t fault you for saying, “I’ve seen it all. I’ve been in the dirt and the muck of it, I want to kick my feet up, I want to take a break from it all.” Why are you coming back? Homan: Becasue we got a problem. The border is the biggest national security vulnerability this nation has seen. Because we got over 2 million “gotaways.” Who are they?  We know over 2 million people entered this country illegal, they weren’t arrested, weren’t vetted. We don’t know who they are, where they came from. We also know that there’s a record number of people on the terrorist watchlist that have been arrested under this administration. They arrested more people on the terrorist watchlist last month than we did under four years of President Trump. Four years under President Trump had 14. They had more than that in a month. There’s a 3,500% increase on people on the terrorist watchlist.  [FBI Director] Christopher Wray—who I’m not pals with and don’t respect a lot of what he’s said and done—even he agrees the southwest border has become a national security vulnerability. The intelligence community has made it clear that there are threats inside the United States that came across that border. There are terrorist cells within this country. So, you can’t have strong national security if you don’t have border security. We need to know what’s coming in, who’s coming in, where it’s coming in. I love this country. Like you said, I started with 34 years. The border is broken. We fixed it once before. We’re going to come back and fix it again. This time we’re going to finish the job. Then I can finally retire knowing that I served my country and we got this country a safer place. And by doing so, secure border saves lives. Again, when you have a secure border and 90% less people are coming, less people are being raped, less people are dying. So that’s why I’m coming back and it’s the second time I come out of retirement for President Trump. I plan on this being my last. So, we’re going to get this job done so that I can retire and know that I served my country honorably. And again, a lot of people out there despise me and the work I do, but I don’t care. I’m going to come back and it’s the right thing to do. Saving lives is the right thing to do. Allen: Have you spoken with President Trump specifically about the wall and his plans for adding to the wall? Homan: We want to add to the wall. The wall works. Every place to build a border barrier, migrations went down, illegal drug flow went down. But what people don’t talk about is the wall also saves lives. And what I mean by that, the most vulnerable, those that come across the border are the women and children. Women and children can’t get over that wall, pretty much, which means they’re going to go to a place where there’s not a wall, and what’s waiting on them? The men and women of the Border Patrol who deal with this humanitarian crisis, who will take care of their health crisis, which many are in bad shape when they get here. So, it saves lives. So, we’re going to finish the wall. Allen: A lot of American families over the past several years have lost loved ones to fentanyl, at the hands of illegal aliens, whether in vehicle crashes or at the physical hands in the case of individuals like Laken Riley, Rachel Morin. What is your message to those families that have experienced firsthand the tragedy of this open border crisis? Homan: Well, look, your heart breaks for them because their children should still be alive. If President Trump was president the last four years, the man that killed Laken Riley would’ve been detained and arrested in New York.  He was arrested in New York City for endangerment to a child. If it wasn’t this administration, and if it wasn’t the priorities of ICE that you can’t arrest an illegal alien unless you’re convicted of a serious crime, he would’ve been taken into custody. He would’ve never got to Georgia to commit that crime. So, help is coming.  We got President Trump coming who’s, again, unprecedented in his success to secure the border. So, help is coming. Too late for them, but they can rest assured that once we secure that border, less bad guys will get in and less of this stuff will happen. So, more families can be spared of the terrible, terrible tragedy they’re dealing with and they’ll deal with the rest of their lives.  I’ve met hundreds of angel moms and dads and I remember every single story and I’ll never forget those stories. And we’re doing this for them in a major way because the Left keeps talking about the Trump family separation. But no one talks about the thousands of separations that have occurred. You want to talk about separation, they bury their children. That’s a permanent separation. So, help is coming and hopefully we can save more families from dealing with tragedies like they dealt with. Allen: Mr. Homan, thank you for your time.   Homan: Right. Thank you.  The post ‘People Are Going to Be Pleased’ With Trump’s Executive Orders, Border Czar Tom Homan Pledges appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Democratic lawmakers have been criticized by Open AI CEO Sam Altman after what some commentators are calling politically motivated scrutiny of major technology executives following revelations that several Big Tech leaders personally donated to President-elect Donald Trump’s upcoming inauguration. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, who contributed $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund, revealed the letter he was sent by Democrats – though other CEOs likely received similar letters. In a letter, signed by Democrat Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Michael Bennet (D-CO), dated January 17, 2025, Senate Democrats questioned Altman’s motivations behind his donation, insinuating that it was an attempt to influence the incoming administration’s policies. Read the letter in full here. “Big Tech companies, including OpenAI, have made million-dollar gifts to President-elect Donald Trump’s inaugural fund in what appears to be an effort to influence and sway the actions and policies of the incoming administration,” the letter stated. “We are concerned that your company and other Big Tech donors are using your massive contributions to the inaugural fund to cozy up to the incoming Trump administration in an effort to avoid scrutiny, limit regulation, and buy favor,” the letter bluntly adds. The letter asks a list of questions and demands a response by January 31st, 2025. Altman’s contribution is among several similar donations from other tech leaders, including Amazon, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi. These donations are now being linked by Democrats to ongoing federal investigations into antitrust violations and labor law breaches, raising concerns about whether lawmakers are weaponizing their oversight powers for political gain. OpenAI itself is under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for consumer harm and faces a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) probe for allegedly misleading investors. Altman responded to the inquiry with a pointed remark on social media, stating, “funny, they never sent me one of these for contributing to democrats…” His comment adds to growing allegations of partisan double standards. Despite the senators’ concerns, political pressure campaigns against tech executives also set a dangerous precedent, where political donations could trigger retaliatory investigations, especially when the same scrutiny isn’t applied on a consistent basis. Several major technology companies contributed to President Joe Biden’s inauguration in 2021, also at a time where Biden was promising tech regulation. Notable contributors included: Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Qualcomm, Verizon, Comcast, Charter Communications, Anthem Inc., Boeing, Pfizer, Uber Technologies Inc., Lockheed Martin, Bank of America, AT&T, and more. These contributions were part of the $61.8 million raised for President Biden’s inauguration events. While Democrats frame their inquiry as a necessary check on corporate influence in politics, critics commenting on X have contended that it smacks of hypocrisy and selective outrage. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Democrat Senators Pressure Tech CEOs about Contributions to Trump Inauguration appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals has allowed Tennessee to start enforcing a state age verification law. It obligates adult sites to verify that their visitors are 18 or over, and do that by unmasking everyone by requiring a person’s photo ID, or “certain public or private transactional data” to ascertain their age. This is one of close to 20 similar laws, cited in the lawsuit against that adopted by Tennessee, where state Republicans behind the legislation say it is needed to protect children from harmful influence online – while those opposed argue that the efforts are both unconstitutional, First Amendment-wise, and ineffective. On December 30, a district court by and large approved a preliminary injunction motion submitted by the plaintiffs, adults entertainment trade group the Free Speech Coalition. The law was to come into force on January 1. But in a 3-0 ruling earlier this week, the appeals court judges greenlit the law’s implementation as the legal battle continues. We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here. Memphis District Court Judge Sheryl Lipman justified the decision to block the law’s enforcement in late December by stating that it “likely” harms adults’ First Amendment rights while failing to actually stop minors from accessing pornographic material online. Lipman argued that minors will use workarounds like VPNs to hide their location, and that they might turn to completely unregulated parts of the internet in search of this type of content, or simply use social media (that pass the one-third adult content threshold). But the state attorney-general appealed, and now the Sixth Circuit panel overturned the injunction, rejecting Judge Lipman’s stance that the law had the potential to suppress constitutional free speech protections. At the same time, children’s ability to access pornography online is described as easy, and having “devastating effects.” Moreover, the ruling touches on the fact that this is one of a number of similar laws, and that when it comes to Texas and Indiana, district courts’ decisions blocking them had also been overturned by the respective courts of appeal. “We see no reason to keep Tennessee’s law on ice while Texas and Indiana may enforce theirs (against at least one of the same plaintiffs), especially when the Supreme Court will soon offer guidance on the standard of review we should apply,” the Sixth Circuit stated. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Sixth Circuit Court Allows Tennessee to Enforce Online Digital ID Laws appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting is coming up and top representatives of this unelected group gathering global elites are “coming out of the woodwork” once again, together with a predictable set of policy endorsements. Many of those policies are built on ideas that originate and were first publicly voiced at the Davos meetings, to then over time become formalized by top-level international institutions like the United Nations (UN), making it somewhat difficult to understand which is older – the chicken or the egg. Ahead of the start of this year’s summit, WEF Managing Director Mirek Dusek told a news conference that the 2025 WEF meeting will focus on “AI” – specifically around “AI governance” and how governments handle the technology. At the same time, Dusek was praising related censorship and surveillance initiatives such as the upcoming France Summit for Action on Artificial Intelligence but also giving a nod to the UN’s High-level Advisory Body on Artificial Intelligence. The latter, in its role as a global AI watchdog, published a report in September that goes into a number of recommendations tied to surveillance and censorship. Here, Dusek appears to refer to it when he says that UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres “achieved important success in September” by establishing a body referred to as “the first installment in terms of international collaboration around AI.” Always on the topic of “AI governance” the WEF official also praised the summit in France, coming up on February 10 and 11, which – for all of Dusek’s talk about “the intersection between AI governance and AI competitiveness” – critics see as, in reality, focusing on ways to control and censor AI development. Some of that focus in Paris will be on coming up with “common ground for international AI governance,” and also, combating “information manipulation” (especially on social networks) as well as “identifying and controlling higher risks that could arise from the uncontrolled use of AI” and, “defining standards for measuring these risks” which “could be a point of international convergence.” Dusek’s remarks during the press conference showed that the priorities are very much aligned – the WEF, which will meet just shortly before the Paris event, from January 20 to 24, is looking to move the needle on AI, its governance and development models in the “preferred direction.” True to form, the direction the WEF prefers is resolutely globalist. “Different governments have different approaches to how they look at AI governance,” Dusek told the press, adding, “It’s very important that there is dialogue across those different geographies so that they can have lessons learned, exchange views on what’s working, what’s not working.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post WEF Director Backs UN’s Pro-Censorship AI Watchdog, Praises France’s AI Summit on Control, and Announces 2025 Focus on AI Governance appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

The First Step is Admitting You Have a Problem

Zoomers Discover The Little Red Book as TikTok Faces Closure

Michelle Obama may have skipped Jimmy Carter’s funeral in order to stay on vacation, but the Friday cast of ABC’s The View cheered the former first lady’s decision to also skip Donald Trump’s inauguration. Sunny Hostin claimed such pettiness was a needed correction from Michelle’s “when they go low, we go high” mantra, while Joy Behar wondered why the former presidents will dignify the event with their presence since the Germans also voted for Hitler. Behar began by asking, “Michelle's rep issued a statement confirming that the former president will attend but not the first lady. Is she right or wrong?” Hostin was all for it, “Yes, lord, she is so right. She is so right. You know, she gave us that when they go low, you know, we must go high and I think she's changed her tune. When they go low, you have to meet that energy and perhaps even go lower, become small like an ant and go to the Earth's crust.”     Most people would claim that unless Michelle Obama manages to get herself elected president, the presidential inauguration is not about her, but Sunny Hostin is not most people, “She said that she did not enjoy Trump's 2017 inauguration because there was no diversity, there was no color on that stage. She said there was no reflection of the broader sense of what America looks like, and many people took pictures of her, and she just wasn't in a good mood, but I want to show a clip of what she said at the DNC which I really think hits home.” The clip showed Michelle declaring, “For years Donald Trump did everything in his power to try to make people fear us. See, his limited narrow view of the world made him feel threatened by the existence of two hard-working, highly educated, successful people who happened to be black.” Hostin reacted, “Yeah. And I think when you see that, you understand why she wouldn't go.” Later on in the discussion, Behar turned to the former presidents, “I just want to say, this is not a normal inauguration. This is not a normal person. He's a convicted felon. Why do they go as if this is a normal inauguration? It's not.” Sara Haines, who earlier defended Michelle’s decision to skip, actually got a bit animated, “Because the weakness it presents to the friggin' globe, when you have presidents that say just because this we’re not going to—America voted—the normalizing of President Trump happened when the American public went out and voted.”     Behar reached for her regularly scheduled Hitler analogy, “The Germans voted also, just saying.” Ana Navarro then proceeded to shift the conversation back to Michelle Obama, “I think Michelle Obama is living her best life and I think she has learned to put herself first and put her mental health first. I think a lot of Americans that feel exactly the same way.” After saying Michelle did her job in 2017, Navarro claimed Michelle's entitled to skip this one, “She sat through that insane speech about American carnage, all her pictures are like,” um, what am I listening to?” So, this time she's saying, "Boo, been there, done that, you're solo on this. I'm out. I'm going to do what's best for my mental health and I think she's fine to do that., you know. And, by the way – and I think every American, if watching the inaugural will be bad for your mental health, go do something that will be good for your mental health.” There are certain responsibilities that come with being a former first lady that the average anti-Trump liberal does not have. One of those is showing up at presidential funerals, and another is attending inaugurations. Sitting through one speech by a president of the other party every four years is not that hard. Here is a transcript for the January 17 show: ABC The View 1/17/2025 11:01 PM ET JOY BEHAR: Trump's favorite oligarchs -- sorry, I mean billionaires, are sure to be in attendance, but one VIP skipping the event is former First Lady Michelle Obama. Michelle's rep issued a statement. Michelle's rep issued a statement confirming that the former president will attend but not the first lady. Is she right or wrong? SUNNY HOSTIN: Yes, lord, she is so right. She is so right. You know, she gave us that when they go low, you know, we must go high. BEHAR: She changed that one. HOSTIN: And I think she's changed her tune. When they go low, you have to meet that energy and perhaps even go lower, become small like an ant and go to the Earth's crust and what I will say is -- yeah, well, what I will say is she said that she did not enjoy Trump's 2017 inauguration because there was no diversity, there was no color on that stage. She said there was no reflection of the broader sense of what America looks like, and many people took pictures of her, and she just wasn't in a good mood, but I want to show a clip of what she said at the DNC which I really think hits home. MICHELLE OBAMA: For years Donald Trump did everything in his power to try to make people fear us. See, his limited narrow view of the world made him feel threatened by the existence of two hard working, highly educated, successful people who happened to be black.  HOSTIN: Yeah. And I think when you see that, you understand why she wouldn't go … BEHAR: I just want to say, this is not a normal inauguration. This is not a normal person. He's a convicted felon. Why do they go as if this is a normal inauguration? It's not. SARA HAINES: Because the weakness it presents to the friggin' globe, when you have presidents that say just because this we’re not going to—America voted— [crosstalk] The normalizing of President Trump happened when the American public went out and voted. ANA NAVARRO: And let me say this. BEHAR: The Germans voted also, just saying – NAVARRO: I think Michelle Obama is living her best life and I think she has learned to put herself first and put her mental health first. I think a lot of Americans that feel exactly the same way, which is why news viewership and things like that have lowered, have gone down dramatically because people are checking out. I think Michelle Obama sat there, did her job when she was the outgoing first lady, when she was the outgoing first lady she had the Trumps to the White House, she was nice, she played nice, she went to the inaugural. She sat through that insane speech about American carnage, all her pictures are like,” um, what am I listening to?” So, this time she's saying, "Boo, been there, done that, you're solo on this. I'm out. I'm going to do what's best for my mental health and I think she's fine to do that., you know. And, by the way -- and I think every American, if watching the inaugural will be bad for your mental health, go do something that will be good for your mental health.

President Joe Biden’s denunciations of an emerging “oligarchy” and “tech-industrial complex” appear to be, beyond a ham-handed attempt at an Eisenhower moment of his own, a clarion call to the media in the waning days of his presidency. If network news is to serve as a guide, it appears that the media have heeded the call. At the conclusion of our analysis of MSNBC’s fawning coverage of Biden’s farewell, we said: With this “oligarchy” narrative, the media will finalize their shift from Regime to Resistance. Never mind that the narrative is fake and little more than a smoke bomb thrown by a failed president on the way out the door. They’ll run with it just the same. The shift is now underway. Watch as the networks each amplified the “oligarchy” narrative, albeit from several approaches (click "expand" to view transcript): RACHEL SCOTT (ABC): And David, just one more note about Treasury Secretary nominee Scott Bessent. Today during his confirmation hearing, he said he would support tougher sanctions on Russia, amid its war with Ukraine. Some Democrats encouraged by those worlds. In the meantime, David, turning to the inauguration, just 24 hours after President Biden warned of an oligarchy taking shape in America, what he called a tech-industrial complex, tonight we have learned a growing list of tech CEOs plan to attend President-Elect Donald Trump's inauguration on Monday. That list includes Apple's Tim Cook, SpaceX and Tesla's Elon Musk, Amazon's Jeff Bezos, Meta's Mark Zuckerberg, Google's Sundar Pichai, and TikTok CEO Shou Chew. All of them, David, will have prominent seats for Donald Trump’s swearing-in, David. NANCY CORDES (CBS): CORDES: Now the Trump team is looking for ways to buy TikTok some time, with a U.S. ban on the app set to take effect this Sunday. Chew will be seated Monday alongside other tech titans including Tesla's Elon Musk, Meta's Mark Zuckerberg, and Amazon's Jeff Bezos. Those three alone have a combined net worth close to a trillion dollars. JOE BIDEN: An oligarchy is taking shape in America... CORDES: In his farewell address last night,President Biden issued a warning about what he described as the tech-industrial complex and the rich men who run it. BIDEN: And that’s the dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a very few ultra wealthy people. CORDES: Trump's pick for Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who is a billionaire himself, was asked about that at his confirmation hearing today. BERNIE SANDERS: When so few people have so much wealth and power, do you think that that is an oligarchic form of society? SCOTT BESSENT: I think it depends on the ability to move up and down the income…  SANDERS: No, that's not really the answer. SAVANNAH SELLERS (NBC): SELLERS: It all comes just days before Mr. Trump's inauguration. According to three sources, TikTok's CEO Shou Chew is expected to attend, along with the world's three richest men: tech titan Elon Musk, Amazon's Jeff Bezos and Meta's Mark Zuckerberg. Just last night President Biden took aim at Big Tech, and what he called the dangerous concentration of power among a select few. ABC’s Rachel Scott dropped “oligarchy” at the end of her Capitol Hill roundup, at the back of her coverage of the respective confirmation hearings of Scott Bessent (Treasury), Doug Burgum (Interior), and Lee Zeldin (EPA). Scott made sure to list each of the tech CEOs attending Trump’s inauguration. CBS’s Nancy Cordes was the most egregious here. Her package was about the tech titan invites to the inaugural, touching on the TikTok ban deadline. Cordes included an incomplete portion of Senator Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) questioning of Bessent which focused on the “oligarchy” question. Tellingly, Cordes omitted the part of the exchange where Bessent absolutely COOKS Bernie: BERNIE SANDERS: "Are Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg too wealthy and powerful? Do you agree with President Biden about an oligarchy?" SCOTT BESSENT: "Those three billionaires all made their money themselves. Mr. Musk came to the country as an immigrant. Jeff Bezos..."… pic.twitter.com/rtgwiR0aQH — KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) January 16, 2025 NBC’s Savannah Sellers had the quickest mention of “oligarchy” within her report that was otherwise focused on TikTok and the looming Supreme Court decision (which upheld the Congressional ban). Albeit from separate angles, the networks arrived at the same place and followed Biden’s implicit directive, ultimately pushing the “oligarchy” angle. Absent a Russia Hoax, this is as close as it gets. Thus the media signal their shift for Trump 2.0: from Regime to Resistance. Click “expand” to view the full transcripts of the aforementioned reports as aired on their respective newscasts on Thursday, January 16th, 2025: ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT 1/16/24 6:41 PM DAVID MUIR: On Capitol Hill, President-Elect Trump’s pick to oversee America’s economy, billionaire Scott Bessent, pressed by senators about the President-Elect's plan to boost the economy, among tax cuts, tariffs, and what the nominee said about sanctions on Russia, amid the war with Ukraine. Rachel Scott on The Hill. RACHEL SCOTT: Tonight, the man President-Elect Donald Trump has chosen to guide the American economy and tackle inflation taking center stage on Capitol Hill. Treasury Secretary nominee Scott Bessent, a billionaire investor and hedge fund manager. SCOTT BESSENT: Today, I believe that President Trump has a generational opportunity to unleash a new economic golden age that will create more jobs, wealth, and prosperity for all Americans. SCOTT: Republican senators asking Bessent to outline the stakes if Congress fails to achieve one of Trump’s top priorities: extending the signature 2017 tax cuts. BESSENT If we do not renew and extend, then we will be facing an economic calamity. SCOTT: Democrats pushing back, insisting the Trump tax cuts have only benefited the rich. TINA SMITH: Now these wealthy people have more money than they know what to do with, and it is certainly not doing anything to lower prices for working families. BESSENT: I believe that President Trump and, if confirmed, myself, are committed to addressing this affordability crisis, and part of the affordability crisis stems from this great inflation that we've had. SCOTT: Also facing questions today, Trump's picks for two key environmental roles. For Secretary of the Interior, former North Dakota Governor Doug Bergum, and for EPA Administrator, former New York Congressman Lee Zeldin. Democrats pressing both nominees about Trump’s pledge to roll back environmental regulations. BERNIE SANDERS: Do you agree with President-Elect Trump that climate change is a hoax? LEE ZELDIN: I believe that climate change is real, as I told you. As far as President Trump goes, the context that I've heard him speak about it was with a criticism of policies that have been enacted, because of climate change. And I think he's concerned about the economic costs of some policies, where there's a debate. SCOTT: Republicans insist these nominees strike a balance between protecting the environment and the economy. JOHN BARRASSO: Congressman Zeldin will correct the course of the EPA. SCOTT: And David, just one more note about Treasury Secretary nominee Scott Bessent. Today during his confirmation hearing, he said he would support tougher sanctions on Russia, amid its war with Ukraine. Some Democrats encouraged by those worlds. In the meantime, David, turning to the inauguration, just 24 hours after President Biden warned of an oligarchy taking shape in America, what he called a tech-industrial complex, tonight we have learned a growing list of tech CEOs plan to attend President-Elect Donald Trump's inauguration on Monday. That list includes Apple's Tim Cook, SpaceX and Tesla's Elon Musk, Amazon's Jeff Bezos, Meta's Mark Zuckerberg, Google's Sundar Pichai, and TikTok CEO Shou Chew. All of them, David, will have prominent seats for Donald Trump’s swearing-in, David. MUIR: You’ll be right there with us on Monday. Live coverage all day long here on ABC of Donald Trump’s inauguration. Thank you, Rachel. CBS EVENING NEWS 1/16/24 6:34 PM NORAH O’DONNELL: The stage is being set for Trump's inauguration on Monday and the list of tech titans who will be on the platform near President-Elect Donald Trump is growing. It now includes the CEO of TikTok, the day after his app may be banned in the United States. CBS's Nancy Cordes reports on the increasingly cozy relationship between the next president and some of the richest men in the world. DONALD TRUMP: I, Donald John trump... NANCY CORDES: When President-Elect Trump is sworn in at noon on Monday, TikTok CEO Shou Chew will have a better seat than most Members of Congress. The invitation disappointed lawmakers from both sides today. JOSH HAWLEY: Not my favorite thing. Not, not my favorite thing. MARK WARNER: Democrats, Republicans agree that TikTok is a huge national security concern. CORDES: Back in 2020 Trump agreed, and tried to force TikTok's Chinese owners to sell the social media platform to a U.S. company. TIKTOK VIDEO: We voted Donald Trump, baby. CORDES: But an avalanche of pro-Trump content on TikTok during the campaign appeared to change his mind. TRUMP:  You know, I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok. CORDES: Now the Trump team is looking for ways to buy TikTok some time, with a U.S. ban on the app set to take effect this Sunday. Chew will be seated Monday alongside other tech titans including Tesla's Elon Musk, Meta's Mark Zuckerberg, and Amazon's Jeff Bezos. Those three alone have a combined net worth close to a trillion dollars. JOE BIDEN: An oligarchy is taking shape in America... CORDES: In his farewell address last night,President Biden issued a warning about what he described as the tech-industrial complex and the rich men who run it. BIDEN: And that’s the dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a very few ultra wealthy people. CORDES: Trump's pick for Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who is a billionaire himself, was asked about that at his confirmation hearing today. BERNIE SANDERS: When so few people have so much wealth and power, do you think that that is an oligarchic form of society? SCOTT BESSENT: I think it depends on the ability to move up and down the income…  SANDERS: No, that's not really the answer. CORDES: TikTok's fate is still up in the air tonight. Some lawmakers are pushing to delay Sunday's ban to give the company more time to find a U.S. buyer, and we’re still watching to see whether The Supreme Court weighs in at Trump's request. Tomorrow would be their last day to do it, Norah, before the ban goes into effect on Sunday. O’DONNELL: So many watching very closely. Nancy Cordes, thank you. NBC NIGHTLY NEWS 1/16/24 6:39 PM LESTER HOLT: Tonight a stunning about face over TikTok. For months there was rare agreement in Washington that it should be banned if its Chinese owner didn't sell it. But now The White House and others who opposed it are trying to keep it alive. Here’s Savannah Sellers. SAVANNAH SELLERS: Tonight, a major reversal concerning one of America's most popular apps. The White House saying they will not implement the ban on TikTok set to go in effect this Sunday, according to two administration officials. ASHCANTLEY: I really feel like this is happening because of us. SCOTTPOLDERMAN: The fight isn't over. It's just going to be extended. SELLERS: The battle over the future of the app has gone all the way to The Supreme Court, but now the administration says it won't enforce massive fines on the companies who provide users access to TikTok. It's a stark shift when the law was passed with massive bipartisan support. The president signing it into law. VANSINTHESAND: Feels like we are losing, like, a community. SELLERS: Now sources say Democratic lawmakers called The White House asking for intervention and President-Elect Trump, who once opposed the app, has signaled he’ll intervene.  DONALD TRUMP: I’m gonna save TikTok! SELLERS: But national security officials still warn that TikTok's Chinese parent company Bytedance could steal American user data or manipulate content shown in the app, which TikTok denies. Then-FBI Director Christopher Wray had this warning, speaking with Lester last year. CHRIS WRAY: We have to sort of step back and say who is TikTok, and ultimately it boils down to the hand which is a matter of Chinese law, of the Chinese government and the Chinese Communist Party. SELLERS: It all comes just days before Mr. Trump's inauguration. According to three sources, TikTok's CEO Shou Chew is expected to attend, along with the world's three richest men: tech titan Elon Musk, Amazon's Jeff Bezos and Meta's Mark Zuckerberg. Just last night President Biden took aim at Big Tech, and what he called the dangerous concentration of power among a select few. JOE BIDEN: I am equally concerned about the potential rise of a tech-industrial complex. (VIDEO SWIPE) The truth is smothered by lies told for power and profit. HOLT: And Savannah- back to TikTok. We’re still waiting to hear from The Supreme Court as to whether it upholds the law in the first place. SELLERS That's right, Lester. And,in fact, The Supreme Court just announced they will have a ruling tomorrow. That last-minute notice suggests there’s a good chance that we get that TikTok ruling, since the Sunday deadline is quickly approaching. Lester. HOLT: We will stay on it. Savannah, thank you.  

On Thursday afternoon, the great Steven Nelson of the New York Post put more meat on the bone regarding reports bumbling, fumbling, stumbling White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre barred national security advisor and spokesman John Kirby from speaking to reporters about the Israel-Hamas ceasefire and hostage deal because she didn’t want arguably the only adult in the Biden team from stealing her thunder. Nelson has been one of only a few journalists (plus Axios) to actually report on this one-sided feud with Jean-Pierre repeatedly having been allegedly loathe to work with him. Nelson explained, that not surprisingly, it had both “[j]ournalists and aides to President Biden...seething” and that it had real world implications as Jean-Pierre’s “spotlight-stealing forced the nation to wait an extra hour to learn details of the American hostages being released, including their names[.]” He said the move came from the top as “[n]ational security adviser Jake Sullivan personally asked for” Kirby to be the person to answer questions and went to Chief of Staff Jeff Zients, “but Jean-Pierre refused to allow it, citing her own prearranged plans to celebrate herself” and one source dubbing it “her goodbye party” and a self-proclaimed “celebration of her.” Zients even supposedly “was intimidated by the situation” and that “Jean-Pierre has at times threatened to call in powerful allies, such as the Rev. Al Sharpton, to back her up, this person said,” essentially playing the race card against her superior, given his skin color. As we wrote at NewsBusters in our recap, Jean-Pierre provided nothing of substance about the landmark and possibly life-changing deal for the region and reporters clearly sensed it. Nelson had more serious dirt to dish out: An indignant journalist told The Post they spotted expensive bottles of champagne, including Veuve Clicquot, on Jean-Pierre’s West Wing desk after the briefing — apparently for a boozy staff sendoff, though the press secretary herself does not drink.   “I thought at the last minute she would just break and say, ‘OK, fine, [Kirby] can just come at the top and he can leave, and then I can wax poetic about my time here, and then I don’t really even have to answer any questions and be grilled on anything,'” the first source said.  “But she really wanted to make a point that the briefing room was ‘hers.’ And so that’s why she pushed so much, and in the end, she feels like she won, and I guess she kind of did. “She looks silly, and God help her in whatever she does next, but in this personal battle that she’s had with [former White House communications chief] Anita [Dunn] and Kirby for the entirety of her time in the press briefing room, I know that she considers it a win.” A person he called “a longtime Biden aide” lambasted the incompetent Jean-Pierre: “Not allowing actual news to be delivered...for your own ego is disgraceful.” An anonymous White House correspondent chimed in that this was “totally unsurprising behavior from someone who was either incapable of recognizing her own shortcomings or unwilling or unable to put in the work required to overcome them.”