Horror and Heartbreak in Uvalde

The peaceful rural Texas town of Uvalde grieves today in the aftermath of a ghoulish  rampage. A teenager ambushed an elementary school, indiscriminately murdering little children.  Tiny kids huddled in terror, savagely gunned down.  Again and again the teenager fired until he was shot dead.

The bloodbath traumatized the close-knit community of 16,000 and stunned Americans.  Schools are becoming killing fields. This year our nation has endured 27 school killings, a deadly record. Unfathomable grief and a lifetime of nightmares left in the violent wake of each carnage.

Every American is posing the same question.  What is wrong with our country?  Answering that requires peering into the soul of our nation. Teenagers, especially young males, are more violent. Troubled.  Often abused.  Disconnected. The term "lone wolf" is used to describe these gunmen.  

After a macabre killing spree, the nation should be united in its resolve to never, ever allow our children to be harmed again.  You can judge a country by how it values its children.  Unfortunately, in gruesome times such as these, Washington erupts into partisan bickering and name-calling.  Shameful. Disgusting.

The knee-jerk reaction is to ban guns. That will stop the killing.  But I grew up in an era where everyone, teenagers included, owned guns in Mississippi.  My high school parking lot was littered with trucks sporting racks of rifles and shotguns. No one feared someone would open fire at students. 

Guns are a handy scapegoat for killings.  But why do so many teenagers use weapons to maim in the first place? Especially a youth who has his whole life ahead.  This may be uncomfortable to hear, but there has been a steady, but precipitous decline in moral values. Life is no longer precious.  

A culture of violence consumes America.  Violence is seething in the mean streets of big cities, on streaming services, in movies, video games, on social media and on the internet. We can't ignore it.  But we do. Impressionable minds become numb to violence and the killing of a human being.

Pervasive evil is dismissed as psychiatric disorder.  Many shooters are clearly mentally ill.  But often after killing sprees, students, parents and teachers admit they spotted odd or rebellious behavior.  But no one acts on their instinct to take action.  It's too late after the fact. Why did they wait?

Why don't students tell adults about disturbed classmates? They don't want to be called snitches.  They are afraid of being bullied, reprimanded by a teacher or being confronted by parents demanding to know why their child is being questioned.  We have to make it comfortable for kids to say what they see.

In the Uvalde tragedy, the killer allegedly sent inappropriate texts to girls. Teen girls whispered about his threats to harm them. A few residents said the killer was bullied because of a stutter with a lisp. At one point, the Washington Post reported, the youth cut his own face with a knife for fun.

No one informed police of his behavior. Unfortunately, the incessant demonizing of police in the culture has caused a growing hostility toward law enforcement. Even in a tight knit community, people are afraid to tell police. Americans don't want to get involved. This needs to change immediately. 

This evil that stalks our nation is disguised as aberrant behavior.  Just kids acting up. However, there are deep mental health issues afflicting young people. Drug use among teenagers is rising. Suicides are spiking. Acts of self harm are escalating.  When will we address these issues? How long will it take?

In every single school massacre, the killer leaves a trail on social media.  The Uvalde murderer posted on Facebook he was going to shoot his grandmother.  He shot her in the face and then bragged online. Later, he posted he was about to open fire at a school. Facebook failed to alert authorities.

Social media is the sewer that enables evil.  Facebook's vaunted algorithms are supposed to ferret out threats of violence.  In virtually every school massacre, the killer wants attention. They act out online and then murder the defenseless.  It is a pattern.  Police know it. So does Facebook. 

The killer, I refuse to mention his name, also posted a picture on Instagram of an AR (Assault Rifle) and a backpack full of ammunition. He put up videos on the social media platform screaming at his mother and cursing her as she tried to kick him out of the house. Police were not notified.

When is the nation going to hold social media companies criminally responsible for their irresponsible business practices?  Facebook owns Instagram.  Facebook's PR executive dodged any responsibility. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is hiding from the media.  They value profit over young lives.

You will hear many solutions from Washington.  Most of them won't do anything to solve the real problems.  Our society has too many broken homes.  Too many single parent households.  Too many abused children.  Too many negligent parents.  Ignoring these problems ensures future slaughter.

Often police or armed school guards are the last line of defense against an armed invasion of a school.  In Uvalde, an ongoing investigation reveals police did not immediately rush the shooter.  A back entry to the school was carelessly left ajar.  Police and the school need to be held accountable.  

There are no quick fixes.  Protecting our school children is the top priority.  Schools are soft targets for evil.  Governments should provide funding to harden every school. There needs to be a single entry with double doors and cameras. Armed guards on premises.  Is that too much to ask?

Mental health services need to be beefed up in communities and schools.  Employing a school counselor is not a solution.  Our children are left under the protection of teachers and administrators who often fail to notice or remain reluctant to report red-flag mental issues. They must be empowered to act.

Parents must inspect what they expect at school.  They need to be involved in every aspect of their children's education, including school safety.  Regular contact with teachers and counselors might help parents learn about a child's behavioral problems at school. Parents must make the time to do it.

After a tragedy, our nation has a history of praying, weeping and demanding results for a few weeks.  Then leaders move on to another crisis before solving the most important job America has: protecting its children.  If we cannot guarantee our children's safety, then we don't value God's most precious gift. 

Infant Formula Shortage Fuels Disbelief, Anger

Just when you thought America had run out of crises, the infant formula shortage burst into the headlines. Outraged mothers discovered empty shelves. Exasperated parents drove hundreds of miles to neighboring states in search of formula.  This is a scene out of Venezuela or Burundi.  

How can the wealthiest, most advanced country on earth run out of baby formula?  The answer to that question is prompting political finger pointing, capitalism bashing and administration spin doctoring. None of this is putting infant formula on store shelves for desperate parents. 

To make matters worse the media has ginned up fear with its often uninformed reporting.  The complex situation requires more than a 30-second sound bite or an online click-bait headline with few facts. A crisis of this urgency demands vetted information which helps Americans understand the issues.

As usual, the Biden Administration was slow to react to the shortage. In February, the administration certainly knew there was the likelihood that the supply would be crippled when the Food and Drug Administration shut down the formula plant of the nation's largest producer,  Abbott Laboratories. 

The FDA halted production after several babies who had consumed the formula manufactured at the Sturgis, Michigan, factory fell ill. Two died.  The FDA made the right call. That's the FDA's job.  But the agency and, surely, the administration understood the impact on the supplies of infant formula.

The Sturgis plant is where Abbott manufactures all its formula. The firm has a facility in Ohio, but it makes other products.  It is now shifting some formula production to the Ohio facility.  But closing the Sturgis plant created a 40% shortage in formula.  The FDA knew its action would trigger a shortage. 

In fact, the problems at Sturgis, we now know, surfaced last September during the FDA's routine inspection.  Agency inspections were scrapped during COVID.  After a whistleblower came forward, the FDA returned to the plant on January 31. Inspectors knew there were problems at the plant.

But it took the FDA until February 17 to order the plant closed. Abbott has contended there "is no conclusive evidence to link Abbott's formulas to these infant illnesses." Reuters reports the FDA and CDC "have not disclosed any information that connects the illnesses to the plant." 

The FDA is green lighting the restarting of production at Sturgis, but it will be months before formula reaches store shelves. After reopening the plant, Abbott estimates it will take anywhere from six to eight weeks before the first shipments are delivered to stores.   

A few fair questions: Why didn't the administration alert the public in February?  Why didn't the FDA work with the formula industry to increase production immediately?  Why wasn't the government contacting suppliers in Europe with requests to ramp up production and expedite shipping to the U.S.?

The administration dithered until the formula crisis reached a national emergency.  Belatedly, the president on May 18 announced a plan to airlift formula from overseas producers, using military aircraft.  They administration calls it "Operation Fly Formula."  Let's hope it's more than a catchy name.

But wait until consumers find out formula from overseas producers is subject to U.S. tariffs of up to 17.5%. Prices of formula will rise.  Also, the FDA labeling and ingredient requirements for formula will exclude some overseas products from being imported.  Don't expect stores to have full shelves soon. 

Democrats are planning to hold Congressional hearings as if this will solve the problem. Hectoring CEO's and slamming capitalism is right out of the Democrat playbook. The FDA should be the agency under scrutiny. Hearings are always great television for puffed up politicians, but achieve little.  

It will be interesting to see if Democrats raise a thorny issue no one wants to talk about.  The largest purchaser of formula in the U.S. is the federal government.  Not consumers in grocery stores. Your tax dollars fund a Department of Agriculture program known by its acronym WIC. 

WIC provides nutrition for low-income, nutritionally at risk, mothers of infants. Abbott and Mead Johnson supply 90% of the infant formula for WIC.  The federal government opted to use sole-source contracting in states, which manage distribution of formula for WIC beneficiaries. 

Charges of gouging by Abbott and Mead Johnson are lies.  The firms actually lose money on formula they sell through WIC because the lowest bidder wins the state contract.  The formula producers receive about 20 times as much revenue from each can of formula sold to a non-WIC consumer.

So let's make this clear.  Taxpayers fund WIC.  If those taxpayers are ordinary moms who shop at a pharmacy or grocery store, they are also subsiding WIC recipients because they pay more for each can of formula to keep the producers in business.  This is a political hot potato for Congress. 

The truth is the federal government has contributed to ensuring only a handful of  companies will control most of the U.S. infant formula market. Fully 98% of the formula sold domestically is made in the U.S. Tariffs and FDA regulations restrict overseas competition.  So who created this "monopoly"? 

Abbott holds a 43% share of the formula market. The other dominant players are Mead Johnson, Nestle and Perrigo.  There are few companies in the formula business  because of the high barrier to entry.  Building and staffing a formula plant represents a multi-million dollar investment. 

The formula business is shrinking, particularly in the U.S. Birth rates are falling and the demand for formula is slowing.  Worldwide sales reached $3.65 billion in 2019.  That is another reason more firms are not rushing into formula production. It is a small line of business and marginally profitable.

In the midst of this crisis, Congresswoman Kat Cammarck blew the whistle on the stockpiling of baby formula at the border for illegal immigrants. The disclosure stoked more consumer anger.  Biden's protector, The New York Times, labeled the concern "faux outrage." But was the information true?

While the Times awarded the congresswoman four Pinocchios, it admitted that a 2015 Customs and Border Protection document ordered : "Food must be appropriate for at-risk detainees age and capabilities (such as formula and baby food.") The phrase in parenthesis is in the newspaper's report. 

It turns out infant formula is indeed stocked in warehouses for illegal immigrants at Border Patrol stations.  So why the four Pinocchios? Isn't it obvious?  The Times propaganda mission is to deflect criticism from the administration and tar those who dare point out the truth. 

It begs the question: Why didn't the administration help relieve the shortage months ago  by sending some of the formula stocked in warehouses to stores? 

Biden' surrogates complain the president is not to blame for this situation. Poor Joe. Presidents often get credit for things they can't influence as well as blame for others.  But, aren't the FDA and the Department of Agriculture part of the government Biden runs? Rhetorical question. 

The administration's pity party is well...pitiful.  American moms do not give a a baby poo about who's to blame.  They expect the federal government to fix it.  And immediately.  Is that too much to ask of a government that spends trillions of dollars in taxpayer funds every year? 

Streaming Wars Will Flip The Future Of Industry

Odds are you have at least four video streaming services.  The average for U.S. households is 4.7. Nearly nine in ten households (85%) have a video subscription service. Cable television cord-cutting and the COVID lockdowns triggered an unprecedented boom in streaming.  But will it last?

That question lingers over the streaming industry despite a 14% jump in subscriptions last year, raising total U.S. subs to 353.2 million. That's an astounding figure considering the current U.S. population is 329 million.  Obviously, many subscribers pay for multiple streaming services, skewing the data.

During the COVID lockdown of 2020, the industry racked up a record 47 million new subscribers. The next year production of original movies and series shows soared 111% percent from 2020.  Streaming services doled out $220 billion on content in 2021 to fuel blazing subscriber growth.

Streaming firms became a stock market darling.  Then the dominant market leader Netflix shed more than 200,000 subscribers in the first quarter after projecting it would add 2 million new customers.  The shortfall sent shudders throughout Wall Street and the video subscription industry.

In spite of disappointing results, Netflix remains the industry's Goliath with 62% penetration of households and 221.8 million customers, according to 2021 industry data. Amazon Prime Video ranks second with 200 million subs while Disney+ ended the year with 129.8 million.

HBO Max is in fourth place with 73.8 million, followed by Paramount+ with 56 million. Other leaders include Hulu, 45.3 million; Discovery, 22 million; Apple TV+, 21 million; and Peacock, 9 million. Figures cited are yearend 2021 global subscriber data.  There are 1.3 billion subs worldwide. 

After the Netflix hiccup, Wall Street and industry insiders worry streaming is plateauing.  Streaming firms are taking a meat cleaver to production costs and scrapping planned original series and movies. With inflation forcing Americans to cut expenses, the industry is retrenching.

The streaming future likely will look a substantially different than it does today.  Surveys find 83% of users want pay streaming services to offer a free version supported by advertising.  Peacock is offering a three-tier pricing model that includes advertising within movies and series.  But it's not free.

Ad revenue will help support production costs and generate profits. But the industry also must address so-called "streaming nomads" who subscribe to a provider for specific content (think Ted Lasso on Apple+) and then dump the service when the series concludes.  

Many of these nomads are aged 18-30 years old and average 11.3 different video subscriptions in a year. These creates customer churn, which drives up subscriber acquisition expense.  Holding on to nomads is a programming challenge for streaming providers, already weighed down by new program costs.

When disruption has occurred in similar industries, there is an effort to consolidate the market, build scale and wring efficiencies in costs, such as bloated production budgets. With more than 200 streaming firms, there are ample opportunities for mergers and acquisitions. 

Bundling of different content providers will follow.  Already, Disney offers a package with Hulu, ESPN+ and Disney+.  Disney owns all three services.  Customers may also subscribe to each service separately.  In the future, expect more bundling, even among different providers. 

It is ironic because cord cutters abandoned cable television because they had to pay for too many services they did not want.  Will there be a repeat in streaming?  Cable customers wanted to pay a la carte but cable companies refused.  Streaming bundles may soon bump up against cable prices.   

To address costs, new technologies and techniques will be employed to produce original movies and series at less expense.  Content is still king in the industry, but providers no longer can afford to shell out billions.  Productions will include fewer big Hollywood names to lower the industry's main expense.  

Amazon offers programming from other content providers for an additional cost.  Others, such as Sling TV, are adopting this approach to increase revenue.  More streamers will take their cue from these two services and add sports, concerts or other live programming for additional fees.  

Another hot button issue the industry must grapple with is service sharing.  Simply put, subscription paying customers provide their password and log-in details with others who access content without paying.  By its own estimate, Netflix figures there are 100 million subs sharing passwords with others.

However, policing service "stealing" will be a costly process and may ignite a negative reaction from paying customers.  The delicate balancing act will determine how successful streaming firms will be in cleaning out the cheaters. 

In this writer's opinion, the winners in the streaming industry will be firms such as Peacock, Amazon and Apple. These firms' streaming services are are small subsidiary of deep pocketed companies who view streaming as a way to increase customer stickiness.

Apple is a great example of this strategy.  Devices are Apple's high margin, main business.  Streaming is just another add-on in the Apple universe of services, which includes music, apps, audio and more. Streaming does not have to stand on its own as a profit center.   

This does not bode well for Netflix, which battles these conglomerate titans without a financial safety net. Streaming services will continue evolving. The industry is in store for more disruption that will whittle down the number of players, eventually leading to higher subscription bills for consumers. 

Attacks On Supreme Court Are Midterm Strategy

The unethical leak of a draft Supreme Court decision on abortion has unleashed a vicious flurry of attacks orchestrated by the Democratic Party.  The fiery response is fueling rage that threatens to dig deeper divisions in America.  The president who promised to heal the country is nowhere to be found.

Make no mistake that the leak was an egregious act to undermine the court. The court's secrecy is sacrosanct.  In this writer's opinion, a Supreme Court justice likely knew about the leak or perhaps encouraged a clerk to leak the document to intimidate the other justices into changing their opinions.

There is little doubt this calculated deceit also is aimed at propping up the sagging political fortunes of Democratic Party candidates facing midterm electoral carnage. With President Biden's approval ratings below sea level, Democrats desperately needed a Hail Mary pass to level the playing field.

The draft, penned by Justice Samuel Alito, appeared first in Politico which licensed  the media cabal to expose the entire document without criticism. It's an old media trick. Politico takes the heat while the liberal media does a Pontius Pilate, washing its hands of blame. 

Moments after the Politico story broke online, pro-abortion activists were in front of the Supreme Court building, waving perfectly printed signs. This is no coincidence.  It should be obvious the protest was staged by groups that had been tipped off about the Politico bombshell report. 

An activist group funded by dark money, Ruth Sent Us, publicly released the home addresses of conservative court justices and urged supporters to show up at their residences to protest. This is not a protest but an attempt to frighten the families of justices by recklessly invading their privacy.

On its website, Ruth Sent Us issues a call for muralists or chalk artists. The website adds: "Large-scale art will be included in the protests against the Supreme Court. Stipends available." On May 11, the bullies plan to protest at the "homes of the six extremist justices." This is a new level of anarchy.

Ruth Sent Us leaders are acting more like terrorists than activists. The group's recruits jumped the gun and gathered outside justices homes this weekend and urged extremists to harangue Catholic Churches on Mother's Day for the religion's stance on abortion. 

In a social media post , Ruth Sent Us mocked Catholics with this message:

"Stuff your rosaries and your weaponized prayer.  We will remain outraged after this weekend, so keep praying.  We'll be burning the Eucharist to show our disgust for the abuse Catholic Churches have condoned for centuries."  This hate speech was not banned from the social platform. 

Biden apologist Jen Psaki refused to condemn protests at the justices private homes. She said peaceful protests are part of the American experience.  Not a single Democrat raised any objections. In fact, Psaki and the president never criticized the leak.  It's an election year and Democrats need an issue.

The lone Democrat to show any decency was Senator Mark Warner of Virginia who unequivocally denounced the leaking of a draft opinion. Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer avoided criticizing the leaker, focusing on the draft opinion. Leaking is fine when it helps Democrats.  

Americans deserve some answers. Was the leaker paid?  Did a sitting justice facilitate the leak? How did Politico obtain the copy of the opinion?  It is the public's right to know. But Democrats control all levers of government, so no one will be held accountable. 

At this point, let's review some facts.  A draft opinion is not the final decision.  Drafts are routinely circulated before the court announces its decision publicly.  Secondly, even if the draft reflects the majority, abortion will still be legal in the United States.  Each state will decide any restrictions.

Now Democrats are huffing and puffing about enlarging the Supreme Court and stuffing it will liberal extremists.  (Yes, if Republican-nominated judges are extremists, then Democrats should be judged by this standard.) They are also threatening to unleash a whirlwind against the conservative judges.  

Such heated rhetoric is a tactic to light a fire under Democrat voters, who are less than motivated to show up at the polls for a party that has overseen the highest inflation in 40 years.  Abortion is an inflammatory wedge issue designed to drive more Democrat voters to the polls in the midterms.   

However, a Pew Research poll released May 6 suggests abortion is a nuanced issue with Americans.  Six-in-ten Americans support legal abortion.  However, the survey discovered when asked about abortion at a specific time in the pregnancy the public opinion shifts.

The survey shows 56% of Americans say how long a woman has been pregnant should matter in determining whether abortion should be legal. That includes 52% of Democrats, according to Pew Research, and 64% of Republicans.  

There are so many ironies surrounding the abortion kerfuffle that it is difficult to know where to start.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose name Ruth Sent Us appropriated, actually was not fond of the Roe vs. Wade ruling. On several occasions, she opined that the decision tried to do too much too fast.

"My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change," she said in a speech at the Chicago Law School.  She called the decision too far-reaching and too sweeping. To be clear, she supported abortion, but not the 1973 decision's approach.

President Joe Biden once advocated outlawing abortion.  In 1981, then Senator Biden championed a Constitutional amendment to allow states to overturn Roe vs. Wade. The bill never made it to the full Senate.  When Biden entered the Senate in 1973, he said the court went "too far" on abortion.

Now President Biden showers abortion with his full-throated backing.

In politics, senators and representatives routinely change their stances on issues about as often as they change their underwear. That's just the ethically-challenged politics of Washington. Both parties are stone cold guilty.  Members follow the prevailing political winds, not their consciences. 

The leak and attendant rancor on both sides will fuel nastier politics. Rage will remain in vogue. In recent years, hordes vandalized statutes.  Rioters terrorized the country for an entire summer, looting, killing and burning buildings.  A uncontrolled mob invaded the Capitol. This is more of the same. 

Many Americans are sick of the political discourse, the division, the hatred, the name-calling and the anarchy.  But if Americans keep voting for the same people and expecting a more civil America they have no one to blame but themselves.  The nation will change when voting reflects American values.  

Hysteria Over Elon's Twitter Purchase

Liberals epic meltdown over Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter exposes their support for media censorship. How dare a billionaire endorse Constitutionally guaranteed free speech! That cannot be allowed. Liberals sound like Stalinists demanding control of information for public consumption. 

Their arguments to reign in free speech would make the framers of the Constitution furious.  The founders foresaw the dangers to democracy if the government or politicians were to abridge unfettered public discourse. Authoritarian governments first instinct is to clamp down on free speech. 

CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post and other liberal media outlets are outraged that a billionaire has the audacity to takeover Twitter, a public forum.  Their hissy fit would be humorous if it wasn't so hypocritical. 

The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon and one of the world's richest individuals.  The New York Times is the property of Carlos Slim, whose wealth dwarfs Musk's fortune. Another billionaire Mark Zuckerberg rides head over the social media platform Facebook.

The Los Angeles Times newspaper, a reliably liberal voice, is the plaything of billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong, who has often been accused of financial misrepresentation. Billionaire Rupert Murdock sits on the throne of The Wall Street Journal.

Here a billionaire, there a billionaire. A handful of elites decide what information is ladled  out to the public.  Liberals seem fine with that. So why the visceral reaction to Elon's Twitter purchase?  The reason is simple.  Twitter has censored conservative discourse. Liberals want the censorship to continue.

No less authority than disgraced conspiracy theorist Democrat Adam Schiff took to Twitter to announce he was "concerned his (Musk) personal views will stop the fight against disinformation." This is the same California congressman who flogged the discredited Russia-Trump collusion story.

Time correspondent Charlotte Alter's diatribe is the perfect summary of the liberal media's hysterics. She wrote on Twitter that Elon's quest for free speech represented a "white male obsession" to spread disinformation.  Hmmm.  She never leveled such an accusation at the other billionaire media moguls.

Billionaire Democrat Party sugar daddy George Soros is so unhinged by the prospect of free speech on Twitter that one of his many left-wing funded organizations Open Markets Institute called on the Department of Justice to block the Musk deal.  The request drips with anti-free speech venom.

Twitter kicked off Reverend Franklin Graham for a posting about the power of prayer.  When Graham challenged the social media platform, the pastor claims the censors were upset about a comment on his own website about parental involvement in school board meetings.  Tut. Tut.  What an incorrigible man!

Even irreverent, comedic site Babylon Bee was booted from Twitter. Those ninny censors at the social media giant can't take a joke.  The Bee's offense was to spoof the the censors. That must have tweaked Vijaya Gadde, who rakes in $17 million annually for her role as Head Censor.  

When the New York Post dropped the bombshell about Hunter Biden's laptop, Twitter's former CEO Jack Dorsey banned any mention of the story before the 2020 election.  Dorsey used his speech-suppression sledgehammer to stamp out "disinformation" that is universally accepted today as accurate. 

Now liberals are openly worrying that Elon will use Twitter to influence elections. Imagine the irony.  They are the ones who lobbied Dorsey to quell the New York Post story because it might tip the scales to former President Trump.  Election influence?  It is only a good thing when liberals do it.  

This is what this liberal hullabaloo is all about: controlling the information the public views on the nation's online town hall.  Free speech scares the daylights out of liberals.  Forget the Constitution. Freedom of speech is bad because the public needs to be protected by liberal values from the truth.

Liberals are terrified that Twitter will lift its permanent ban on former President Trump.  That's the real agenda. Trump had 88 million followers at one time, the most ever on Twitter.  Mr. Trump is the boogeyman liberals hate.  Not drug or human smugglers who post on Twitter.

Elon was beloved by the media until he pulled out his wallet and threw money at Twitter. Now he's Public Enemy No. 1 for saying out loud that he supports free speech.  That sacred right was extolled by politicians and the media at one time. Today the media believes censorship is good of America.

As could have been anticipated, the Biden Administration has unveiled a new Disinformation Governance Board as part of the Department of Homeland Security.  You can't make this stuff up. The White House announced the board will crack down on what it deems online disinformation.

Elon Musk is now in the crosshairs of the powerful federal government.  In a warning shot, a federal judge denied Elon's request to scrap a 2018 settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission after the Twitter deal. If Homeland Security can't undercut Elon, the SEC will step in.

The administration's next move will be to re-open the lucrative billion dollar contracts Elon's Space X private company has with NASA.  Do not doubt this prediction.  Biden's minions in Washington will find a way to reinstate censorship at Twitter.  The truth will shatter their disinformation.

Americans should be insulted. The campaign against free speech is built on the idea that Americans are too dumb to decide for themselves what information may be false.  America's founders believed in the people's judgment.  They trusted the citizens with the freedom of speech.

Free speech is no longer free under the heavy hand of censors, either in the government or those who control wide swaths of information dissemination. The government, in fact, has been one of the biggest spreaders of misinformation and disinformation.  Who will censor Washington?