Gun customization is a big deal in Call of Duty‚ and there’s an overwhelming number of options. There are currently at least 70 different Optic attachments. You can’t realistically try them all‚ so here are our picks for the best Optics in Call of Duty MW3 and Warzone. Related: Best Perks in MW3 Warzone Best Optics for MW3 and Warzone The best Optic attachments are easy to use and don’t clutter the screen. Ideally‚ we’re after an unobstructed sight that doesn’t incur many stat penalties. Here are my picks for the best Optics in the game‚ along with how they look on a weapon and while aiming. Forge Tac Delta 4 Image: PC InvasionImage: PC Invasion The Forge Tac Delta 4 has a few downsides‚ but the pros outweigh the cons. This Optic boasts the highest magnification on the list at 5.5X and has a dull glint. If you can stomach the 5% ADS speed penalty‚ you’re treated to a wide‚ clutter-free pictu...

Geometry Dash has had a very surprising new game mode added. The Tower. Strangely found in the normal level select‚ this game mode has many surprises. What is The Tower in Geometry Dash? The Tower is a new game mode in Geometry Dash since update 2.2. You can find it at the very end of the level selection‚ which is a rather bizarre place considering all other added levels have had their own spaces. When you enter The Tower‚ you’ll find a series of levels. These levels differ from every single level in the game however‚ as these levels are platformers. And very well-created ones at that. For PC players‚ the normal buttons result in a jump‚ however the default movement keys will move you from side to side. For mobile players‚ there will now be two arrows on the bottom left. I’m sure you can work that out. There are coins to collect‚ special blue coins to find‚ and even a time to complete each level under. If you find all of one collecti...

The Confederate Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery is being torn down. After a short legal battle‚ the Biden administration will continue its plan to remove the statue‚ which is over a century old‚ from the cemetery in Arlington County‚ Virginia. Will this monument be treated with care once it’s removed? I find that doubtful.  The statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville‚ Virginia‚ was supposed to go to a museum. It went to a “museum” all right—a museum that melted down the statue and beheaded it in the dead of night. The demolition should have been halted permanently. Arlington’s Confederate Memorial‚ where then-President Barack Obama sent a wreath just over a decade ago‚ should have been left where it was and remained a lasting tribute to the restoration of the Union. The Biden administration’s move to tear down the Confederate Memorial is an ominous sign for the future of our republic. The monument to Confederate war dead at Arlington‚ a cemetery built on land that belonged to Robert E. Lee‚ was not a tribute to racism‚ slavery‚ or the Confederate cause‚ as many contend. The statue was built more in the spirit of President Abraham Lincoln‚ who had “Yankee Doodle” and “Dixie” played at the White House upon receiving news of Lee’s surrender to Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant.  Malice toward none and charity for all. North and South‚ we are all Americans again. In 1865‚ that was hard to accept for many. By 1900‚ much had changed. The idea of reconciliation and rebuilding was not just a fanciful idea‚ it was becoming a reality. This was in part due to wise leadership from men who fought on both sides of the Civil War. In 1898 President William McKinley‚ a Union veteran of the Civil War‚ made a speech for the “Peace Jubilee” following the end of the Spanish American-War.  McKinley said that … in the spirit of fraternity we should share with you in the care of the graves of Confederate soldiers … Sectional feeling no longer holds back the love we feel for each other. The old flag again waves over us in peace with new glories. This quotation is on the page describing the Confederate Memorial on Arlington National Cemetery’s website. How long will it stay there? In August‚ former Sen. Jim Webb‚ D-Va.‚ made a call to save the memorial in The Wall Street Journal. Webb explained how construction of the monument to reconciliation came together‚ in large part because of McKinley‚ who was insistent that Union and Confederate veterans play a significant role in the Spanish-American War: McKinley understood the Civil War as one who had lived it‚ having served four years in the 23rd Ohio Infantry‚ enlisting as a private and discharged in 1865 as a brevet major. He knew the steps to take to bring the country fully together again. As an initial signal‚ he selected three Civil War veterans to command the Cuba campaign. Isn’t it interesting that a Union veteran who literally had faced the Confederacy in battle was more apt to forgive his enemies than modern-day ideologues separated from the war by over 150 years? Webb noted that one top commander in Cuba was “‘Fighting Joe’ Wheeler‚ the legendary Confederate cavalry general‚ [who] led the cavalry units in Cuba after being elected to Congress in 1880 from Alabama and working hard to bring national reconciliation.” Was Wheeler a Confederate or an American? The world didn’t stop in 1865.  McKinley called for Americans to set aside old feelings of enmity and embrace our shared future destiny as a nation united. From there‚ the American century began‚ and we all should be thankful for it. The idea that the Confederate Memorial at Arlington was made to reinforce “white supremacy” is a reductionist anachronism. There are many who argue that reconciliation itself is racist‚ because it happened between white Americans at a time when civil rights for black Americans hadn’t been fully achieved. If that’s the case‚ shall we not pay tribute to our victory in World War II‚ accomplished decades before the Civil Rights Act and with a still-segregated military? What we are seeing happen with Arlington’s Confederate Memorial and countless other memorials and statues around the country is the ideology of commentator-author Ibram X. Kendi applied to history. Literally everything is broken down to “racist” or anti-racist.” This is the spirit of the “racial reckoning” that was wholly adopted by American institutions in 2020. They will use it to demolish every part of our past‚ including the Constitution. If it wasn’t obvious years ago‚ it should be completely obvious now that those who drove the destruction of the Confederate Memorial at Arlington would like to tear down heroes of the Union too. They would like to make a clean sweep of our past. They will destroy whatever they think they can get away with destroying. Columbus‚ Thomas Jefferson‚ George Washington‚ Lincoln‚ and all the other greats from the history of American civilization are on the chopping block. At no point will the statue-destroying fanatics be content with what’s been removed and decide that enough has been done. Appeasement will simply abet more destruction. Arlington’s Confederate Memorial was created to consecrate the idea that the Union was whole again. Tearing it down sends a signal that the America previous generation built will be deconstructed—just like the statue—and that resolving our differences comes through crushing and erasing our political opponents. The spirit that animates the statue-destroying fanatics‚ if it had been the prevailing attitude at the end of the Civil War and the years that followed‚ would have left us without a country. We’d be a series of shattered‚ petty banana republics fighting for scraps in a world that would have passed us by. Those of us who would like to see another American century need to resist calls to destroy our past. If the history-erasing ethos continues to be promoted by our institutions‚ that apocalyptic outcome may still be our fate after all. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Ominously‚ Biden Admin Will Tear Down Monument to Reconciliation at Arlington Cemetery appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Anyone who listened to the college presidents defending calls for the genocide of Jews with condescending smirks in their Dec. 5 congressional testimony could see they were insufferably smug. But then we got evidence that Ivy League universities may not have selected the best and brightest to lead them. Consider Harvard President Claudine Gay‚ who evinced no ability to think on her feet or even adjust wording undoubtedly scripted for her by lawyers. Yet despite her brilliant display of dullness‚ Gay grinned as though she were the cleverest in the room. This was‚ perhaps‚ understandable. Gay is‚ after all‚ president of Harvard University. Typically‚ you get to be president of Harvard only if everyone knows that you are very‚ very smart. After her shameful performance‚ however‚ it should come as no surprise that Gay rose to this post despite a shockingly unimpressive scholarly record. Manhattan Institute senior fellow Christopher Rufo has since produced convincing evidence that Gay plagiarized parts of her dissertation. Failing to properly quote source material either can be a sign of carelessness or a symptom of struggling to generate original ideas. Her academic output since then suggests it was the latter. Over about two decades‚ Gay has written 10 journal articles and no books. This is about half the average rate for a political science professor‚ even at a middling university. By comparison‚ Amy Gutmann—who like Gay is a political scientist and until early last year served as president of the University of Pennsylvania—has published more than a dozen books and well over 100 articles. Some academics make their name by developing one profound insight into an important question. Others make their reputation by offering consistently interesting insights on a range of questions. Gay has done neither. She has authored only a handful of articles offering uninteresting insights on the narrow question of African-American political opinion and representation. In her last article‚ published six years ago‚ titled “A Room for One’s Own?‚” Gay found that Democratic governors direct federal housing subsidies to supportive constituencies when they have the discretion to do so. Amazing! In “Knowledge Matters‚” Gay found that political ignorance is a key reason why African Americans support Democrats despite policy disagreements. Who knew? In “Seeing Difference‚” Gay found that African Americans resent economically successful Hispanic neighbors. Wow! How did Gay rise so far despite such a mediocre academic record? You already know how‚ or at least part of how. Gay is a woman of color‚ and within the liberal ivory tower of Harvard‚ it’s impermissible for a white professor to accuse a woman of color of being intellectually mediocre. Only a black professor could possibly do that. It’s interesting‚ then‚ that Gay’s institutional rise was marked by a pattern of destroying the careers of genuinely brilliant black scholar who had the stature to point out her mediocrity. Harvard economist Roland Fryer‚ for example‚ has published more in a single year than Gay has in her entire career. But while serving as the dean of faculty‚ Gay led the charge to strip Fryer of almost all of his academic privileges on trumped-up charges of having run an office with a hostile work environment. As documentary filmmaker Rob Muntz put it‚ “Fryer was the victim of a coordinated professional assassination. And … the chief architect of that assassination was none other than Claudine Gay.” Another target of Gay’s character assassination was Ronald Sullivan‚ a black professor at Harvard Law School. In addition to being an accomplished law professor‚ Sullivan was dean of Winthrop House‚ one of Harvard’s residence halls. After Sullivan agreed to serve as an attorney to help defend Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein against rape charges‚ several Winthrop House students complained that they no longer “felt safe.” When she realized that it would be impossible to remove Sullivan for providing legal representation‚ Gay launched a witch hunt to find a pretext for his removal. Despite a decade of leading Winthrop House without incident‚ Gay insisted that he had presided over a hostile environment. Gay’s appointment as Harvard president felt like an “emperor has no clothes” moment. If academics can’t admit or even think that someone is an affirmative action pick‚ then Harvard just pretended that she was robed in the finest scholarly garb. What harm could come to Harvard from picking Gay as its president? As it turns out‚ quite a lot. Although one doubts that Harvard’s newfound institutional commitment to free speech would extend so far as to permit speaking obvious truths‚ the truth is now abundantly clear not only on campus but also across the country. Everyone paying attention knows that Harvard picked its president because of her immutable characteristics‚ despite her lack of scholarly accomplishment. The country also can reasonably suspect that Harvard is refusing to fire its president despite her manifest failure to respond properly to the current wave of antisemitism on campus and despite credible allegations of plagiarism because of her immutable characteristics. Perhaps the Harvard board of trustees will act with integrity‚ but we rather doubt it. It seems more likely that Harvard will be stuck being led by an academic whose alleged early plagiarism could not plausibly be redeemed by the merit of her later scholarship. Play DEI games‚ win DEI prizes. This commentary originally was published by The Washington Times Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post A Failing Grade for Harvard’s Claudine Gay appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Texas has begun the campaign to restore the role of states‚ especially border states‚ in combating illegal immigration. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Monday signed into law SB No. 4‚ which authorizes state authorities to arrest and order illegal aliens to return to the foreign nation from which they entered. State authorities may do so without involving federal law enforcement or the labyrinthine federal process for adjudicating immigration claims. But in the era of lawfare‚ bicameral legislative support and the signature of the state’s chief executive is not enough. Laws like Texas’ must receive the blessing of the federal courts. Although that is normally an obstacle to be avoided‚ here‚ Texas may hope that the federal courts hear a challenge to the law. Current Supreme Court precedent stands in the way of Texas’ designs‚ but that obstacle will not be removed without a challenge like the one posed by the Lone Star State’s new law. Since 2012‚ conservatives have been wandering in search of a legislative response to the problem of unchecked illegal migration across the southern border.  That year‚ in one of his least creditable displays of legal reasoning‚ Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy‚ writing for a five-justice majority‚ held that an Arizona law criminalizing illegal presence under state law violated the U.S. Constitution. How so? In the since-retired Kennedy’s estimation‚ Arizona’s effort to deter illegal migration in its territory might impinge on federal “policy choices that bear on this nation’s international relations.” Thus‚ Kennedy conjectured that Congress had removed from the states any authority to legislate in the field of immigration enforcement.     Since the decision in Arizona v. U.S.‚ state efforts to address mass illegal migration have been trapped in a series of arcane legal debates. Is the mass movement of millions of self-styled asylum-seekers; economic-migrants; single‚ military-aged males; criminals; and terrorism threats from more than 160 countries‚ including our adversaries‚ an invasion within the meaning of Article IV‚ Section 4 of the Constitution? Do executive-branch policies like President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) or President Joe Biden’s en masse parole violate the president’s constitutional duty to “take care that the Law be faithfully executed”? Do states even have a legal right to sue the federal government when it announces enforcement standards contravening the plain text of federal law?  To date‚ none of these questions has been resolved in a way remotely favorable to stemming the tide of illegal migration. The answer ought to be a good deal more straightforward: States‚ as sovereigns‚ have “the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory‚ subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress.” That was the answer then-Justice Antonin Scalia gave in his dissenting opinion in Arizona v. U.S.  But it’s the answer the majority foreclosed. And wrongfully so‚ because‚ as Scalia explained‚ “the power to exclude” is at the “core of state sovereignty.” A political community that has lost the ability to expel those with no lawful right to be within its territory is not meaningfully sovereign. Thus‚ it cannot be presumed that Congress has extinguished that power.  Then‚ as now‚ Congress has not enacted a law expressly negating that state power. Kennedy merely inferred that negation. For much of the 20th century‚ the Supreme Court relied on penumbras and emanations to hallucinate protection for entirely novel individual rights‚ for instance‚ the constitutional right to contraception.  With equal verve‚ the court used constitutional shadows—the supposed negative implications of features such as the Commerce Clause—to restrict the traditionally broad ambit of state sovereignty and defeat core exercises of that authority. Yet that approach cannot continue indefinitely. The ever-increasing demands of the human rights regime cannot always prevail against the older tradition of sovereign rights‚ which ultimately protect the citizens constituting that sovereignty. Nowhere is a shift more necessary than in the field of immigration. The unconcealable anarchy at our southern border is a direct consequence of the court’s ruling in Arizona. Executive branch authority is at its peak in matters of international relations and foreign affairs. By placing the issue of illegal immigration under these headings‚ Kennedy not only transferred sole authority over immigration enforcement to the federal government‚ he gave it primarily (and‚ in practice‚ almost exclusively) to the executive branch. The executive branch‚ which ought to be implementing Congress’ legislative judgments on immigration policy‚ has instead developed the habit of resorting to its prosecutorial discretion and contriving its own policies that disregard restrictions on illegal entry and the necessity to deport certain classes of aliens. Thus‚ the preemption that Kennedy found allowed the executive branch to convert that field of policymaking into a near-total void of enforcement. Some Texas lawmakers have stated that the SB No. 4 complies with Arizona v. U.S. and that they have no need to challenge that decision. Whether Texas lawmakers believe that or not‚ the Biden administration is going to take a more jaundiced view of the matter. And under current Supreme Court precedent‚ one can expect the federal government’s view to prevail in the lower courts. The problem of mass illegal migration long predated Arizona v. U.S. Still‚ the Supreme Court made the situation materially worse by depriving the states of their rightful‚ historic ability to deal with the problem insofar as it came within their borders. For that specific aspect of the problem‚ the court bears responsibility. But Kennedy is no longer on the court‚ nor are Justices Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Ginsburg‚ both of whom joined Kennedy’s majority opinion. Thus‚ in addition to persuading Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito‚ who dissented in Arizona‚ Texas would need to gain the votes of all three Trump-appointed justices‚ Neil Gorsuch‚ Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Alternatively‚ Texas could lose one of those votes if they persuade Chief Justice John Roberts‚ who voted with Kennedy‚ to reconsider the reasoning in Arizona.  The court‚ as a whole‚ has good reasons to reconsider Arizona’s rationale. As a purely legal matter‚ Kennedy’s opinion ignored both the original understanding of state sovereignty‚ as well as the long-standing interpretive rule that core attributes of state sovereignty cannot be destroyed by implication.  Scalia described both in his dissent. The justices will also have an opportunity to survey the wreckage‚ so to speak‚ and appreciate that making immigration control an exclusively federal prerogative has produced domestic chaos and little of the international stability that Kennedy thought so desirable. Thus‚ if it comes‚ when it comes‚ the court should take its opportunity to right the wrong and overrule Arizona v. U.S. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Texas Comes Out Swinging in Fight to Restore States’ Role in Curbing Illegal Immigration appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The new Donald Tusk-led Polish government has been accused of engaging in “a barbaric attack on freedom of speech and journalistic independence” after seizing control of the state broadcaster TVP Info‚ taking several of its channels off the air‚ and taking further punitive actions against other state broadcasters. In addition to taking over TVP Info and restricting some of its channels‚ Poland’s new ruling coalition also fired the heads of TVP Info‚ the public broadcaster Polskie Radio‚ and the state-run news agency Polish Press Agency. The TVP Info documentary series “Reset‚” which explored Poland’s relations with Russia between 2007 and 2015 and the actions of former Polish governments during this time period‚ was also removed from TVP’s archive. Poland’s former ruling party‚ the Law and Justice (PiS) party‚ responded to the takeover of TVP Info by staging a sit-in protest at the state broadcaster’s headquarters. The new Polish government claimed that its moves against these broadcasters are part of an attempt to “depoliticise” them and accused the broadcasters of “carrying out propaganda tasks” in favor of the former government. However‚ members of Poland’s previous ruling party argued that the conservative slant of public media was needed to provide an alternative to Poland’s mostly liberal private media. Poland’s former prime minister‚ Mateusz Morawiecki‚ accused the new government of violating its “supposed care for the rule of law… at every step.” JarosÅ‚aw KaczyÅ„ski‚ the former deputy prime minister of Poland and the leader of the Law and Justice Party‚ said: “There is no democracy without media pluralism‚ without strong anti-government media.” Poland’s president‚ Andrzej Duda‚ also criticized the new government’s actions against these state broadcasters by stressing that “a political objective cannot be an excuse for violating or circumventing constitutional and statutory regulations.” Even critics of the Law and Justice (PiS) party have admitted that the new government’s moves against these state broadcasters are problematic. While the Tusk-led government is exercising control over TVP Info‚ the broadcaster is fighting back via its social media channels. It has been providing regular updates on the pushback against the government takeover of these media outlets on X. Additionally‚ TVP Info has uploaded the Reset documentary series to its YouTube channel. TVP World‚ an English-language news channel owned by TVP Info‚ condemned the Polish government’s actions on X. “Recent events conducted by the newly elected Polish government to illegally take control of TVP have left us speechless‚” TVP World wrote. “Our channel and its website have been shut down with no reason provided‚ and our work is on hold.” According to TVP World‚ the Association of Polish Journalists (SDP) has also strongly criticized the government’s actions‚ describing them as “a barbaric attack on freedom of speech and journalistic independence.” The post Polish Government Takes Over State Broadcaster TVP Info‚ Takes Several Channels off Air appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. In a milestone for non-Big Tech digital media‚ conservative commentator and radio host Dan Bongino has surpassed three million subscribers on Rumble‚ the video platform known for advocating free speech. This achievement marks a significant moment in the Big Tech rival platform’s history‚ solidifying Bongino’s status as a key influencer in the digital media landscape. Bongino’s growth on Rumble has been fast. Each of his live shows now consistently garner over 100‚000 viewers. Recognizing this success‚ the Rumble Team has expressed great enthusiasm over Bongino’s commitment to the platform. In a recent statement‚ they announced a new development for 2024: Bongino will be increasing his live streaming time from one to three hours daily‚ promising his audience more of the unfiltered and dynamic content he is known for. This expansion to a three-hour daily show‚ described by Bongino as “nonstop political insanity‚” is expected to draw even larger audiences and further amplify his voice on the platform. The move is seen as a testament to the growing influence of alternative media platforms like Rumble‚ which prioritize free speech and offer a counter-narrative to mainstream media outlets. The significance of Rumble’s growth‚ and that of creators like Bongino‚ goes beyond mere numbers. It highlights a growing public appetite for platforms that support free speech and provide a haven for diverse opinions. In an era where concerns about censorship and media bias are at an all-time high‚ Rumble’s rise represents a shift in the media landscape‚ offering a new avenue for discourse and debate. Bongino’s success on Rumble is not just a personal victory but a beacon for proponents of free speech. It underscores the importance of having platforms where voices‚ regardless of their political leanings‚ can be heard without fear of suppression. As we move into 2024‚ Bongino’s extended live streams are set to become a major fixture in the digital media space‚ further cementing the role of platforms like Rumble in shaping public discourse. The post Dan Bongino Reaches Record-Breaking 3 Million Rumble Subscribers‚ Extends Show Length‚ In a Win For Free Speech in Digital Media appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Bill Adair‚ co-founder of PolitiFact‚ recently posted an article on Nieman Lab addressing his predictions for 2024‚ expressing his frustration over the perceived inadequacy of fact-checking practices. The traditional method of publishing fact checks online has proved ineffective‚ according to him‚ and the notion of “informing democracy” is no longer functioning as it should. Adair is particularly concerned about the general skepticism towards political fact-checking among the Republican demographic‚ suggesting a failure in correcting this misalignment. As first noticed and suggested by NewsBusters‚ the fact that more conservative ideas are still prevalent prompts a sense of alarm in Adair. This sentiment was met with strong criticism by former New York Times political analyst Nate Silver who responded by labeling the situation as “Yikes on every level” across multiple platforms. To Silver‚ the notion of fact-checkers acting more like “marketers” and abandoning the humble goal of “informing democracy” to instead pair up with social media companies and suppress so-called misinformation is more than a cause for concern. Furthermore‚ Silver questioned the approach of ramping up the same marketing efforts for fact-checkers that have been decreasing in trust for years. In a tweet‚ he expressed his skepticism‚ stating “IDK how they go from acknowledging that people trust fact checking less and less to being like ‘yes we need to triple down on everything we’ve been doing for the past 8 years.'” It’s important to note that fact-checkers are often accused of demonstrating bias in their work. The post Fact-Checking Founder Suggests Abandoning Goal of “Informing Democracy” To Act More Like “Marketers” appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently affirmed an injunction against federal agencies to stop the current White House from colluding with Big Tech’s social media. And now‚ the Biden Administration is going to the US Supreme Court in a last-ditch attempt to reverse this decision. The big picture effect – or at least‚ the intended meaning – of the Fifth Circuit ruling was to stop the government from working with Big Tech in censoring online content. There’s little surprise that this doesn’t sit well with that government‚ which now hopes that the federal appellate court’s decision can be overturned. The White House says the ruling is banning its “good” work done alongside social media to combat “misinformation”; instead of admitting its actions to amount to collusion with Big Tech – which has been amply documented now‚ not least by the Twitter Files – the government insists its actions are serving the public‚ and its “ability” to discuss relevant issues. We obtained a copy of the petition for you here. US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy is back again here – to say that what those now in power in the US (a message amplified by legacy media) did ahead of the 2020 presidential election‚ as well as subsequently regarding the pandemic “misinformation” – which is now fairly widely accepted to be censorship (“moderation”) – is what Murthy still calls‚ justified. By what‚ though? Because the appellate court’s ruling looked into the government’s “persuasive actions” (and no‚ you’re not reading a line from a gangster movie script‚ where “coercion” is spelled as‚ “urging”‚ etc.). In any case‚ the appellate court found these actions were in fact coercive and unconstitutional. Well‚ Murthy believes the court got it all wrong. The Fifth Circuit is accused of “improperly applying new and unprecedented” remedies. (No – he was not talking about the Covid vaccine(s). The reference was to the court’s allegedly flawed “legal theories”). Murthy and other administration representatives are telling the Supreme Court that what the Fifth Circuit found to be unconstitutional‚ was actually “lawful persuasive governmental actions.” The “grand” argument here is that‚ historically‚ US governments have been using free speech as a vehicle to promote their policies. And so – why would this case of “urging” Big Tech be any different? “The Biden administration’s urging of social media platforms to enforce their content moderation policies to combat misinformation and disinformation is no different‚” the government said. The post Biden Administration Urges Supreme Court To Overturn Injunction on Federal Agencies Influencing Tech Censorship appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

NBC: Joe Biden Emailed Hunter's Business 'Associate' 54 Times As VP