$347.9 Million Allocated For Wyoming High-Speed Internet Infrastructure

Wyoming News
-
0
$347.9 Million Allocated For Wyoming High-Speed Internet Infrastructure

WASHINGTON – The Department of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced that Wyoming will receive $347,877,921.27 to deploy affordable, reliable high-speed Internet service. Right now, 39,215 homes and small businesses in Wyoming lack access to a high-speed Internet connection.

As part of the “Internet for All” initiative, a key component of President Biden’s “Investing in America” agenda, the President, Vice President, and Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo announced how much funding from the $42.45 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five territories will receive.

“Bringing high-speed Internet to Wyoming’s rural communities is going to be life-changing for families across the state,” said U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo. “Thanks to President Biden’s leadership and with the work of Governor Gordon, this investment will ensure everyone in Wyoming has access to quality, affordable Internet, create jobs and boost the state’s economy.” 

States, D.C., and territories (“Eligible Entities”) will use funding from the BEAD program from President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to administer grant programs within their borders. 

The BEAD funding will be used to deploy or upgrade broadband networks to ensure that everyone has access to reliable, affordable, high-speed Internet service. Once deployment goals are met, any remaining funding can be used on broadband adoption, training, and workforce development efforts, among other eligible uses.

Details related to the allocation for the states, D.C., and territories are available on InternetForAll.Gov. 

Eligible Entities will receive their formal notice of allocation on June 30, 2023. Under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Eligible Entities have 180 days from the date of that formal notice to submit their Initial Proposals for how they will run their grant programs. Eligible Entities can begin submitting their Initial Proposals starting July 1, 2023. Once NTIA approves an Initial Proposal, which will occur on a rolling basis, Eligible Entities will be able to access at least 20 percent of their allocated funds.

About the National Telecommunications and Information Administration    

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), part of the U.S. Department of Commerce, is the Executive Branch agency that advises the President on telecommunications and information policy issues. NTIA’s programs and policymaking focus largely on expanding broadband Internet access and adoption in America, expanding the use of spectrum by all users, advancing public safety communications, and ensuring that the Internet remains an engine for innovation and economic growth. 

W. O. K. E. The Democrats ARE EVIL!!

Wyoming News
-
0
W. O. K. E. The Democrats ARE EVIL!!

Judge Links Evidence To Potentially “Millions Of Free Speech Violations”

Wyoming News
-
0
Judge Links Evidence To Potentially “Millions Of Free Speech Violations”
MONROE, LA – A federal judge issued a historic, 155-page ruling on Independence Day citing “substantial evidence” the federal government engaged in large-scale censorship efforts targeting social media content that questioned or countered its “official” narratives. The 86-pages of background facts detail a shocking pattern of consistent pressure and threats exerted by the Biden administration demanding that social media platforms censor protected speech. 
In the lawsuit, attorneys general from Louisiana and Missouri presented 1,432 factsshowing top government officials and agencies “colluded” with social media companies in a “censorship-by-proxy” scheme to suppress and censor opposition to COVID-19 policies, Biden administration policies, validity of both the 2020 election and Hunter Biden laptop story, and more. 
In response to the evidence, Chief U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty for the Western District of Louisiana concluded, “the alleged suppression has potentially resulted in millions of free speech violations.”
Judge Doughty reviewed evidence derived from thousands of internal federal recordsrevealing correspondence between officials and technology companies in their exact words. Judge Doughty’s ruling contains 86-pages summarizing the involvement of the White House, the Departments of Justice, State, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, FBI, and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) in “pressuring” or “encouraging” the censoring of social media content.
Excerpts from Judge Doughty’s ruling include:
White House Defendants – Clarke Humphrey, former Digital Director for the COVID-19 Response Team, urged Twitter in January 2021 in emails to remove a COVID-19 shot hesitancy post by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Humphrey wrote, “…we can keep an eye out for tweets that fall in this same genre.” Another email read, “Hey folks, wanted to flag the below tweet and am wondering if we can get moving on the process of having it removed ASAP.”
– Rob Flaherty, former Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Digital Strategy, chastised Facebook in an email for perpetuating certain threads about COVID-19. Flaherty wrote, “Not to sound like a broken record, but how much content is being demoted, and how effective are you at mitigating reach, and how quickly?”
CISA Defendants– Judge Doughty wrote, “CISA engaged with Stanford University and the University of Washington to form the Election Integrity Partnership whose purpose was to allow state and local officials to report alleged election misinformation so it could be forwarded to the social media platforms to review… According to [Renee] DiResta [at Stanford, a frequent collaborator with Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy], EIP was designed ‘to get around unclear legal authorities, including very real First Amendment questions’ that would arise if CISA or the other government agencies were to monitor and flag information for censorship on social media. Therefore, the CISA Defendants aligned themselves with and partnered with an organization that was designed to avoid Government involvement with free speech in monitoring and flagging content for censorship on social-media platforms.”
FBI Defendants– “According to the Plaintiffs…the FBI had a 50% success rate regarding social media’s suppression of alleged misinformation.” Judge Doughty stated, “…the FBI participated in Industry meetings and bilateral meetings, received and forwarded alleged misinformation to social media companies, and actually misled social media companies in regard to the Hunter Biden laptop story…Even after Facebook specifically asked whether the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation…the FBI refused to comment, resulting in the social media companies’ suppression of the story.” Judge Doughty said the evidence presented in the case paints the federal government as an “Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’”
Judge Doughty wrote, “…the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history. In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech.”
“This seemingly unrelenting pressure by [the] Defendants had the intended result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by American citizens,” Judge Doughty noted.
In a section of the ruling titled “Irreparable Harm,” Judge Doughty stated the plaintiffs have shown there is “substantial risk” of sustained harm to the American people if this censorship is allowed to continue.
“Although the COVID-19 pandemic is no longer an emergency, it is not imaginary or speculative to believe that in the event of any other real or perceived emergency event, the Defendants would once again use their power over social media companies to suppress alternative views…[and] use their power over millions of people to suppress alternative views or moderate content they do not agree with in the upcoming 2024 national election,” said Judge Doughty.
While the case continues, Judge Doughty’s preliminary injunction orders the federal government and thousands of federal employees from corresponding or engaging “with social media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social media platforms.”
The injunction lists “Facebook/Meta, Twitter, YouTube/Google, WhatsApp, Instagram, WeChat, TikTok, Sina Weibo, QQ, Telegram, Snapchat, Kuaishou, Qzone, Pinterest, Reddit, LinkedIn, Quora, Discord, Twitch, Tumblr, Mastodon, and like companies” as being restricted to the federal government when dealing on matters of protected speech. 
The Biden administration has appealed the injunction to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. 
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Reading the factual findings of the disturbing pattern of censorship one would assume this is China or a dystopian novel. Sadly, this government-coordinated censorship occurred in America at the highest levels of government. The Biden administration and government agencies intentionally and knowingly deceived the public. Everyone involved must be held accountable.”

LA Detectives Seek Additional Victims of Sexual Assault Allegedly Perpetrated By Peter Abraham Shure

Soleil Teal
-
0
LA Detectives Seek Additional Victims of Sexual Assault Allegedly Perpetrated By Peter Abraham Shure

Los Angeles:  The Los Angeles Police Department’s (LAPD) Juvenile Division Abused Child Section is seeking the public’s help to identify additional victims after arresting a 29-year-old man on suspicion of Sexual Assault.  

On Thursday June 28, 2023, LAPD detectives arrested Peter Avraham Shure (a resident of the Westchester neighborhood in Los Angeles) for 261.5(A) PC – Unlawful sexual intercourse with a Minor Under 18-Years-Old (Booking No. 6631955), after receiving two separate reports of forced Sexual Assault of two female victims.  The Suspect convinced the victims to go to his residence where he allegedly sexually assaulted them.  Detectives believe there may be additional victims.   

The investigation was presented to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office.  Upon reviewing the cases, the District Attorney’s Office filed two counts against Peter Shure; Penal Code §261(A)(2) – Rape and (1) count of Penal Code §288(C)(1) – Lewd Acts Against a Child 14-years-old or Younger  

Bail was set at $320,000.00 and as of July 3, 2023, Shure posted bail and was released from custody.  

Detectives from Juvenile Division are releasing the suspect’s booking photo because they believe the suspect is responsible for additional, unreported sexual assaults and they are asking for anyone that was victimized by this suspect to immediately contact the LAPD.  In addition,  Detectives are seeking the public’s assistance for information regarding this crime.   

Falafel Fried Chicken with Potato Latke Waffles

Wyoming News
-
0

A Jewish recipe for chicken and waffles.

BY AKIVA GENGER

Chicken and waffles is a classic soul food dish that has its roots in the American South. It is thought to have originated in the 1930s at Wells Supper Club in Harlem, New York, where it was served as a late-night meal to hungry jazz musicians. The dish quickly gained popularity and became a staple of soul food cuisine. It is often served as a breakfast or brunch dish, but it can also be enjoyed for dinner. Today, chicken and waffles can be found on the menus of diners and restaurants all over the United States, and it has become a beloved comfort food for many people.

This unique twist on classic fried chicken and waffles combines the flavors of falafel with the crispy, savory goodness of fried chicken and the creamy, potato-y goodness of latkes. The result is a delicious and hearty meal that is perfect for any occasion. Whether you’re a fan of traditional Jewish cuisine or just looking for a new and exciting way to enjoy chicken and waffles, you’re sure to love this recipe. So grab your ingredients and let’s get cooking!

Prep time: 20
Cook time: 20
Serves: 4

INGREDIENTS

Fried Chicken

  • 1 whole chicken cut into 1/8ths
  • 1 cup coconut milk
  • 1 cup pickle juice
  • 1 teaspoon each cumin, coriander and cayenne

Falafel Breading

  • 2 cups chickpea flour
  • 1 ½ tablespoons salt
  • ½ tablespoon cumin
  • ½ tablespoon garlic powder
  • ½ tablespoon turmeric
  • ½ tablespoon paprika
  • ½ tablespoon ground coriander
  • ½ teaspoon cayenne
  • 1 teaspoon baking powder
  • 1 tablespoon fresh parsley, chopped

Frying

  • Neutral oil for frying

Garnish

  • Tahini
  • Silan (date honey)

PREPARATION

Falafel Fried Chicken

  1. In a large ziploc bag or bowl, whisk together coconut milk with pickle juice, add chicken and let marinate for at least 30 minutes.
  2. Prepare breading in a large bowl combine chickpea flour, salt, cumin, garlic powder, turmeric, paprika, coriander, cayenne, baking powder and parsley.
  3. When ready to cook, pour the vegetable oil in a skillet until it is about 3/4 inch deep. Heat to 350℉.
  4. Working one at a time, remove chicken pieces from coconut milk mixture. Shake it gently to remove the excess. Place it in the breading mix and coat thoroughly. Tap off the excess.
  5. Place the breaded chicken into the hot oil. Fry 3 or 4 pieces at a time. The chicken will drop the temperature of the oil so keep it as close to 350℉ as possible. Fry each piece for 14 minutes, turning each piece about half way through, until the chicken reaches an internal temperature of 165℉.
  6. Remove from the oil and place on paper towels. Let them rest for at least 10 minutes before serving.

Potato Latke Waffles

Instead of simply pairing our chicken with waffles, we made potato latke waffles. Potato latkes are traditionally fried, but making them in the waffle iron creates a unique texture and lets us save our frying for the chicken.

INGREDIENTS

  • 2 large or 4 medium (2 pounds) russet or baking potatoes, peeled
  • 1 medium onion (about 6 – 8 ounces), peeled
  • 2 teaspoons baking powder
  • 1 ½ teaspoon salt
  • Freshly ground black pepper
  • ½ cup flour, potato starch or matzo meal
  • 3 large eggs
  • Nonstick spray, for waffle iron

PREPARATION

  1. In a food processor or on a box grater, coarsely shred the potato and onion onto a clean kitchen towel. Pull up the sides and squeeze the liquid out. Place dried potato mixture into a bowl.
  2. Add baking powder, salt, pepper, and flour and stir with a fork to evenly coat. Add eggs and mix well.
  3. Heat waffle iron to high heat. Coat lightly with cooking spray and spoon latke mixture over top evenly. Press top down and cook until nice and golden brown and fully formed.
  4. Remove to an oiled sheet pan and continue cooking until all waffles are ready. Place in oven to reheat and crisp up before serving with fried chicken.

Serve falafel chicken with waffles and drizzle over top 100% pure tahini and silan (date honey).

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CoDNcgfAyJQ/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=4c68ffbb-1260-4b99-9033-542528d86134

Republished with permission from Aish.com

Judge Issues Injunction To Protect Free Speech On Social Media Platforms

Sarah Pachter
-
0
Judge Issues Injunction To Protect Free Speech On Social Media Platforms

Andrew Torba
CEO, Gab.com

While we were all enjoying the fireworks on the 4th of July a significant development that could have profound implications for the relationship between the government and social media platforms was unfolding in the courts. A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction restraining key agencies and officials of the Biden administration from engaging with tech companies in matters related to the suppression of protected speech. This ruling was initiated in response to a lawsuit brought forth by Republican attorneys general from Louisiana and Missouri and marks a pivotal moment in the fight for free speech.

This legal action was prompted by allegations that government officials had overstepped their boundaries by urging social media platforms to address posts that could incite vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic or influence elections.

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic the battle for free speech intensified as governments and social media platforms grappled with the challenge of moderating content related to the origins of covid, the vaccine, masks, lockdowns, and other related information. While many platforms succumbed to the pressure to censor information at the behest of the government, one platform stood firm in its commitment to freedom of speech: Gab.

Gab became a haven for individuals, including many doctors and medical professionals, seeking an outlet to express their opinions without fear of censorship. As COVID-related discussions flooded the digital landscape, Gab emerged as a crucial platform where diverse perspectives could be shared, debated, and challenged openly.

During the pandemic various external entities, including government officials, the media, and advocacy groups, exerted immense pressure on social media platforms to censor COVID-related content. Gab steadfastly resisted such pressure, choosing instead to allow the free exchange of information and ideas to flourish. This unwavering commitment to free speech distinguished Gab from other platforms that succumbed to external influences, thus positioning itself as a beacon of liberty and open dialogue.

Thankfully we now have a promising ruling on the subject of the government demanding private social media companies censor content on their platforms. On Independence Day District Judge Terry A. Doughty granted an injunction effectively preventing multiple federal agencies and top officials from pressuring social media companies to remove or suppress content that contains protected free speech on their platforms. The injunction also prohibits these officials from flagging such content or influencing the companies’ content moderation guidelines.

It further restricts their involvement with entities like the Virality Project, previously known as the Election Integrity Partnership, and the Stanford Internet Observatory, which have been accused of exerting censorship pressure on social media platforms. The Stanford Internet Observatory in particular has repeatedly targeted Gab with this strategy in the past and we have stood our ground against their demands for censorship.

This preliminary injunction carries substantial implications for the First Amendment, signaling a potential disruption to the longstanding collaboration between governments and social media companies in censoring Americans’ speech. Judge Doughty’s order imposes constraints on executive agencies, including the Department of Justice, State Department, Department of Health and Human Services, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

While the final ruling is still pending, Judge Doughty’s preliminary injunction suggests his inclination to favor the arguments presented by the plaintiffs. In his opinion, he stated that the evidence provided demonstrates a concerted effort by the defendants to suppress speech based on its content. Comparing the United States government’s actions to an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth” during the COVID-19 pandemic, Judge Doughty expressed his lack of persuasion by the defendants’ arguments.

The opinion also highlights the gravity of the case suggesting that if the allegations made by the plaintiffs are true this could be one of the most significant attacks on free speech in the history of the United States, as the federal government and the defendants are accused of flagrantly disregarding the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.

Judge Doughty’s order does permit certain exemptions, allowing communications related to national security threats, criminal activities, or voter suppression. The Biden administration has denied the claims of collusion in censoring Americans.

This lawsuit specifically targets the federal government’s role in content censorship on social media, in contrast to previous complaints that primarily focused on the actions of tech companies themselves. Moreover, the injunction extends beyond restraining government-technology company communications and also prevents collaboration between government agencies and academic groups dedicated to studying social media, including the Election Integrity Partnership.

As 2023 unfolds, it is becoming a significant year for free speech in the United States. The Supreme Court has issued several decisions that bear implications for free speech, including a recent ruling that established a higher threshold for punishing speech as a “true threat.”

Governments should not collude with tech companies to suppress protected speech. This ruling highlights the importance of platforms like Gab, which prioritize the preservation of free speech and offer an alternative to mainstream social media platforms that have faced criticism for their content moderation practices. At Gab we have been standing our ground against government censorship and pressure from outside academic groups for years. It’s great to finally have a ruling on the side of our actions and on the side of free speech.

Andrew Torba
CEO, Gab.com
Jesus Christ is King

Individuals Arrested in Cody Wyoming

Wyoming News
-
0
Individuals Arrested in Cody Wyoming


July 3-4, 2023 ARREST:
07/03/23 Clayton Coleman, Cody, 76, Arrested for Warrant (Incident# 2307030047)

07/04/23 Ellie C. Jensen, Fruita, CO, 22, Arrested for DUI: Alcohol >0.08% 1st Offense within 10 Years;
Possess Controlled Sub – Plant – 3oz or Less; Tail Lamps Required (Incident# 2307040002)

07/04/23 Kyle J. Sager, Cody, 30, Arrested for Public Intoxication; Bond Violation (Incident# 2307040034)

07/04/23 Badger J. Martin, Billings, MT, 22, Arrested for DUI Alcohol = to >.08% within 2 Hours of Driving 1st Offense within 10 Years; Speeding in Excess of Posted Limit (Incident# 2307040091)

Supreme Court See’s Through Democrat, “Diversity Charade”

Wyoming News
-
0
Supreme Court See’s Through Democrat, “Diversity Charade”
Op-ed in National Review by Committee for Justice president Curt Levey, who also represented the plaintiffs in Grutter v. Bollinger: 
The “diversity rationale” that justified racial preferences in college admissions for almost half a century met its demise in the Supreme Court last Thursday. Its fate should surprise no one because it was always based on a lie.
The Court was considering lawsuits by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) against Harvard College and the University of North Carolina, challenging the preferences — essentially lower admissions standards — given to black and Hispanic college applicants. The record indicates that their admissions systems were designed, in part, to ensure that there were not too many Asian students in each entering class.
The defendant schools did not deny that they were treating applicants of different races differently. Instead, the central legal issue before the Court was whether seeking the purported educational benefits of a broadly diverse student body — the diversity rationale — should continue to serve as an exception to the Constitution’s and 1964 Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against racial discrimination. By a 6–3 vote, the Court said no.
The diversity rationale, first endorsed by Justice Lewis Powell in his 1978 opinion in University of California v. Bakke, envisioned race being one of many factors weighed to achieve broad intellectual and experiential diversity. As the Supreme Court stated in its 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision, affirming the diversity rationale, schools must give “serious consideration to all the ways an applicant might contribute to a diverse educational environment.”
Had that vision of broad-based diversity become the guiding force in college admissions, the diversity rationale would likely have survived. Instead, colleges chose to use the diversity rationale as cover for massive racial preferences in pursuit of one-dimensional racial diversity.
Consider Harvard College’s challenged admissions system, which uses an index based on GPA and standardized test scores. A black applicant in the fourth-lowest decile of the index has a slightly higher chance of admission than an Asian American in the top decile. Clearly, Harvard uses race as far more than one of many diversity factors.
As Justice Thomas pointed out in his concurrence, “Harvard’s ‘holistic’ admissions policy began in the 1920s when it was developed to exclude Jews.” Harvard, citing concern that the percentage of Jews in its student body — close to 30 percent — threatened its diversity, modified its reliance on entrance exams and created a new more “holistic” system. The percentage of Jews admitted was cut in half.
The modern version of the diversity rationale is disturbingly similar. Always under the guise of achieving diversity, schools designated different racial and ethnic groups as favored or disfavored, depending on the racial fashions of the times. Ironically, Thomas noted, the current version of diversity “discriminat[es] against some of the very same ethnic groups against which Harvard previously discriminated.”
The nation’s leading universities tell us that, this time, they really are using race to achieve the educational benefits of a broadly diverse student body. Yet they make no attempt to remedy, for example, the underrepresentation of conservative or fundamentalist Christian students typical at these schools. Moreover, their faculty-hiring policies, treatment of conservative speakers, and the like indicate anything but a pursuit of intellectual diversity.
When university officials throw aside the charade of seeking broad-based diversity, they try to convince us of something narrower: the wonderful educational benefits of racial diversity. But they don’t even believe in that. If they did, educators would be debating whether historically black colleges deprive black students of the educational benefits of diversity. Similarly, they wouldn’t embrace segregation on their campuses. Thomas reminds us that “43% of colleges offered segregated housing to students of different races [and] 46% offered segregated orientation programs.”
Few of those publicly defending the diversity rationale really believe in it. Former University of Michigan president Lee Bollinger, the defendant in Grutter, admitted that his vigorous defense of the diversity rationale had merely been a litigation strategy, rather than something he and his colleagues in higher education “really believed.” No wonder last Thursday’s ruling explicitly rejected universities’ plea, in the majority’s words, to “trust us.”
In my countless conversations with proponents of affirmative action, they typically justify it as necessary to level the playing field and rarely mention the purported educational benefits. In fact, many of them find insulting the argument that preferences for blacks and Hispanics are important because they enhance the education of other, mostly white, students.
So we are left asking how a rationale that almost no one believes in came to be the legal justification for race-based admissions for nearly half a century. One reason is that Supreme Court precedent makes it clear that while an entity can use racial preferences to remedy its own discrimination, it can’t do so to remedy society’s allegedly uneven playing field or to achieve racial proportionality.
But who can object to seeking broad-based diversity for the educational benefit of all? That’s undoubtedly why Justice Powell adopted the diversity rationale and why the higher-education community quickly latched onto it.
The diversity rationale is also appealing to educators because it allows them to admit mostly affluent and upper-middle-class minorities, who are better prepared for college and have less need for financial aid. After all, even well-to-do minorities contribute to diversity. Admitting affluent minorities is harder to justify if the goal of race-based admissions is remedying the legacy of racial oppression.
University officials obsessed with race are already mourning the loss of the diversity rationale and likely plotting ways to circumvent last Thursday’s decision. Instead, schools should focus on the fact that the Court’s decision leaves schools free to — and, in fact, more likely to — seek students with a genuine diversity of viewpoints and experiences.
What’s clear is that the power of schools to shape their student body in accord with the racial fashions of the day — whether at the expense of Jews a century ago or Asian Americans now — has come to an end. The dishonest and sordid nature of the diversity rationale has finally caught up with it

Federal Court Blocks And Prohibits Biden Administration, FBI, DOD, Numerous Federal Agencies and Officials From Having Contact With ANY Social Media

Wyoming News
-
0
Federal Court Blocks And Prohibits Biden Administration, FBI, DOD, Numerous Federal Agencies and Officials From Having Contact With ANY Social Media
MONROE, LA – A federal judge in Louisiana ruled yesterday in Missouri v. Bidenthat the Biden Administration “likely” violated the First Amendment free speech rights of Americans by suppressing and censoring social media posts during the COVID-19 pandemic. The judge issued a sweeping preliminary injunction barring numerous federal agencies and officials, including the entire Department of Justice and FBI, from having any contact with social media companies for the purposes of manipulating protected speech.
The 155-page landmark ruling is a result from a “censorship-by-proxy” challenge brought by attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri alleging the federal government either pressured or “significantly encouraged” big technology firms such as Google, Meta, Twitter and others to suspend or censor social media accounts and posts that the government viewed as unfavorable. 
Chief U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty for the Western District of Louisiana wrote in the July 4 ruling that the plaintiffs in the case “have produced evidence of a massive effort by Defendants, from the White House to federal agencies, to suppress speech based on its content.” 
Judge Doughty stated, “Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed.”
Judge Doughty noted the evidence presented in the case “depicts an almost dystopian scenario.”
“During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth,’” Judge Doughty wrote. 
“If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history. In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech,” wrote Judge Doughty. 
The injunction also bars the U.S. State Department, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Health and Human Services, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and at least 40 cabinet members and federal officials from engaging with social media companies, except when dealing with criminal activity and national security threats. 
According to the injunction, the government used “meetings, emails, phone calls, follow-up meetings, and the power of the government” to influence public narratives. Therefore, Judge Doughty specifically prohibited government entities agencies from “engaging in any communication of any kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech,” said the injunction.
The injunction takes effect immediately.
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The Biden administration’s shameful and unprecedented censorship of protected speech violates our most fundamental liberty. This is the worst censorship in history and it harmed people by preventing the dissemination of life-saving information. What the U.S. Constitution directly prevents, government officials cannot do indirectly through private actors. The federal government’s lawlessness must be stopped.”

American Exceptionalism

Wyoming News
-
0
American Exceptionalism

By:MarcKelley
The story which follows, is that of the American Dream, and how using the belief in American Exceptionalism, not only led to the founding of our country, it has seen us through some very dark and desperate times. Believing in American Exceptionalism, does not, in and of itself, make anyone a racist, a xenophobe or an isolationist…It makes you a proud American, proud of our country, and proud of our abilities to rise to the occasion, repent for our shortcomings and then emerge as stronger and more united people.
The ideology of American Exceptionalism, has its foundation rooted in the belief The United States was intentionally created to be fundamentally different than any other nation on earth. In the furtherance of this belief we fought the Revolutionary War demanding: freedom of speech and religion. We fought to defend the ideals of liberty and equality, of individual responsibility, and national sovereignty. We fought against tyranny and the heavy hand of the political class and embraced the belief in representative democracy and a free market economy. Historians, having long studied the birth of our nation argue, it is our belief in liberty, equality, constitutionalism, and the well being of ordinary people which give credence to the idea, Americans are special people, with a special destiny to lead the world toward liberty and democracy.
For decades U.S. leaders on both sides of the political aisle not only believed in American Exceptionalism, but championed the ideology. Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, JFK, Ronald Regan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush not only embraced the concept of American Exceptionalism, but made it a part of their core belief system. Not until 2008 did the idea that  American Exceptionalism is a myth become commonly held by a sitting U.S. President. Many in America today point to the election of Barack Obama as the point in time when the idea of hating America was woven into mainstream thinking. Rather than focusing on the progress our people had made in overcoming our shortcomings, a new belief system was actively promoted. A belief system which focused on the pain of our past, placed the importance of race above all other characteristics, and called for our people to fundamentally change the way America should be perceived. This change ultimately replaced the optimism of believing in the promise of our future and began teaching victimhood over self-determination. 
Countless examples of American Exceptionalism can be found throughout history, if one will only look. It is here where we find another example of the tactics used by the modern day Marxist’s in their fight to destroy patriotism and diminish pride in America. For decades part of our children’s core education required an understanding of civics, which teaches the rights and duties of citizenship. Sadly, it is our children who have become the targets for indoctrination over education. It is not a difficult concept to understand why so many young people are not patriotic when they have been taught nothing of what it means to be an American or of the sacrifices made for them to preserve America. As is always the case with promotion of propaganda, it is much easier to be taught to hate when you have no first hand knowledge about the subject of that hatred. In 1863, as the U.S. Civil War raged on, President Abraham Lincoln, spoke passionately on the concept of American Exceptionalism, in his Gettysburg address. Lincoln’s historic words ring as true today as they did 160 years ago, when he said, Americans have a duty to ensure “government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” This concept holds firmly to the belief, it is the knowledge of America’s history itself, which gives us our advantage over other nations of the world.
Today’s Marxist’s attack the ideology of American Exceptionalism, believing their enlightened insight represents a new progressive form of thought. Hereto, just a bit of time spent in history class would illustrate the absurdity of this notion and surely bring a patina of shame upon the true believers. The term American Exceptionalism, was in fact first used in 1929, by then Soviet Communist leader, Joseph Stalin. Unlike the American definition, Stalins’ use of the term was derogatory, and intended to criticize what he called, the revisionist faction of the Democratic Socialists. Stalin viewed Marxists as nothing more than a power hungry mob, seeking to create an elite bureaucratic class, to rule over the common man.
Perhaps the best example of American Exceptionalism, can be found in what we have called, The Greatest Generation. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, young men and women descended on the recruiting offices of our military, not to protest America, but to sign-up and defend her. However, it was not only young people who felt the call to defend our country, all of America, regardless of political ideology, came together to support our troops, our flag, and our way of life. It has always been the American can do spirit which has allowed our country to accomplish seemingly unimaginable tasks. When we needed the efforts of not just our military, but all of our people, it was the belief in American Exceptionalism, which hardened our resolve and illustrated the strength of our people. Only by the grace of God and our belief in American Exceptionalism would our efforts and sacrifices defeat both, Nazi Germany and the Japanese Imperialists.
It should not be easily forgotten, who and what, lies behind the capitalism of the corporations and companies of America. America is powered by the blue collar, middle class American worker. Our free market economy is driven by American consumers who believe in the concept, from those who much is given, much is expected in return. America is infused with the indomitable spirit of our people; and Americans have always responded to the words spoken by JFK, when he said, “ask not what your country can do for you- ask what you can do for your country.” Using the knowledge gained and the technology developed from our victory of Nazi Germany, America sent men to the moon and returned them safely back to earth, then shared what we learned with the world. Harnessing the ideals of American Exceptionalism, JFK implored our people to do this,”not because it is easy, but because it is hard… to accept the challenge, we intend to win.” 
The 1950’s and 60’s, brought with them some of Americas’ darkest days. Racial injustice, segregation, lynchings, violence, and all manner of hate filled speech. For far too long, the violence was commonplace, and was ugly then, as it is today. Yet here again, the concept of American Exceptionalism would provide the impetus to make great changes to our social structure. Rejecting the separate but equal Jim Crow mentality, Dr. Martin Luther King, led our country through drastic change, righting many of the wrongs, which had come before. Not through violence, but persistence, and the belief in the tenets of our Founding Fathers. Dr. King using the content of his character rather than the color of his skin accomplished a great deal of social change in America. Dr. King will forever be remembered for his belief in American Exceptionalism, his sacrifice, and his undying commitment to the concept of not tearing down the U.S.; but rather, contributing to the building of a more perfect union. 
As we gather our friends and family for the 4th of July celebration, take just a few minutes to think about why we celebrated the 4th. Think about the brave men and women who will not be with their families because they are standing watch, keeping us safe, and defending our freedoms. Think about the countless men and women who came before us, and never made it back home to their families, and raise a glass in remembrance of their sacrifice’s. When the honors have been paid, celebrate the fact, you live in the greatest country in the world not in spite of; but rather, because of…American Exceptionalism.
1...151617...144Page 16 of 144