Tag: Elon Musk

An Elon Musk Win in His OpenAI Lawsuit Is a Win for the Public

The high-profile trial of Elon Musk vs. Sam Altman is one week in.

As the federal jury in Oakland, California takes in the evidence, one simple question hangs over the courtroom: Can you steal a charity?

The answer will determine the future of artificial intelligence as well as the fate of charitable giving.

OpenAI, the entity that Musk and Altman co-founded, was built on a solemn, legally binding promise that its leaders have since breached.

What began in December 2015 as a nonprofit organization, which was dedicated to developing artificial intelligence that benefitted all of humanity, has become a closed-source, profit-making, $850 billion company.

The stealth transformation was not merely a clever business plan. It was a breach of charitable trust.

Musk, Altman, and Greg Brockman co-founded OpenAI. Prior to its founding, Musk had grown increasingly worried about the risks of advanced AI. Altman shared similar concerns about AI’s concentration in a few big companies.

Altman and Musk had the titles of co-chairs at OpenAI’s launch. Musk hadn’t just lent his name to the new nonprofit, he had conceived the idea, recruited key talent, and poured in tens of millions of dollars.

The founding charter sought to advance digital intelligence safely and openly, free from commercial pressures. Internal documents, emails, and Musk’s sworn testimony presented during the first week of the trial have laid it out plainly.

Musk would never have funded or championed the project had he known it would morph into a Microsoft-backed profit engine. But this is exactly what happened.

After Musk left the board of directors in 2018 over conflicts with Tesla’s own AI work, OpenAI’s management pivoted.

First came the effort to attract capital. Then billions of dollars rolled in from Microsoft. And by 2025, OpenAI had fully restructured into a for-profit entity, with Microsoft securing a 27% stake worth $135 billion. The company was sprinting toward going public.

OpenAI’s ChatGPT became a commercial hit, while the original open-source safety-first mission was quietly deleted.

The very organization that Musk helped to create, trying to prevent AI from being controlled by a handful of profit-driven giants, was now partnered with one of them.

Based on the evidence in court, Musk’s motives for bringing the lawsuit appear to be legitimate. Musk has testified that, by late 2022, he had lost confidence in Altman’s commitment to the nonprofit charter. And he has renounced any personal financial gain he would obtain from a legal victory. It appears as though the legal proceeding is not about him enriching himself, because he has pledged to redirect any damages back to the original charitable mission.

In large part, this case is about enforcing the rules that protect donors who give to a charitable cause with the expectation that the organization will remain a charity.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. If the jury and the judge allow to stand the transformation of a charity into a business enterprise, a dangerous precedent will be set.

If this should happen, any nonprofit entity would be able to use a founder’s accomplishments and status to bring in initial donations, and then flip to a for-profit model once the money and talent have been locked in.

Such a precedent would cause charitable giving in America to suffer a serious decline.

Ironically, the future of AI would be handed over to the same concentrated corporate power that Musk and Altman originally set out to counter.

It is unlikely that a Musk victory in this legal battle would detrimentally affect innovation. Rather, it may have the potential to restore competition and accountability. It may also force OpenAI to honor the safety-and-humanity-first charter, which justified its tax-exempt status and spurred its original support.

Despite the high profile and high net worth of both of the parties in this trial, the issues at stake are more than just monetary. The founding documents of OpenAI are, in essence, a contract with the public.

Musk’s attorney put it bluntly in the opening statement: “No one should be allowed to steal a charity.”

As an example, a nonprofit museum can run a gift shop, but it cannot loot the Rembrandts and sell them for private gain.

The monumental trial is expected to last three to four weeks. After the jury has heard the testimony, seen the emails, and gone over the timeline, it must decide whether promises made in the name of humanity still mean anything.

A verdict for Musk would send a clear message to those creating AI models: Innovation without integrity has consequences.

Promises must be kept, especially when it comes to the commitment between a charity and its donors.

The commitment of OpenAI to pursue safe, open, humanity-first artificial intelligence must be honored.

If justice prevails, Musk should be the victor. And the public will reap the benefit.

Elon Musk and the Dog Days of DOGE

During the 2024 campaign cycle, then-GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump promised voters that when he took the oval office for the second time he would enlist the help of Elon Musk to assist him in ridding the federal government of waste, fraud, and abuse.

Musk is the entrepreneur extraordinaire that with his forward-thinking approaches to electric vehicles and rocket technology was able to transform the automobile and aerospace industries.

He is also the individual that was able to take the social media platform Twitter, christen it with the new name of “X,” and take it to the level of being one of the most influential platforms ever to exist. In so doing, he not only liberated the media landscape, he accomplished the seemingly impossible.

In 2021 he secured the Time magazine title of “Person of the Year.” About Musk, the then-Time editor-in-chief Edward Felsenthal wrote, “Person of the Year is a marker of influence, and few individuals have had more influence than Musk on life on Earth, and potentially life off Earth too.”

It’s difficult to imagine an equally qualified person that would be willing and able to take on the fiscally challenging responsibilities.

During the campaign, Trump had told the Economic Club of New York that he planned to create “a government efficiency commission tasked with conducting a complete financial and performance audit of the entire federal government and making recommendations for drastic reforms.”

Following his historic victory, the president fulfilled his promise and set up a government efficiency commission, with Musk being given the assignment of running it. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was born.

It’s just what Trump voters had wanted. And judging from their reactions, it was exactly what the Democrats and the mainstream media feared.

The surprise is how good DOGE has been at exposing the corrupt use of taxpayers’ money.

In the decades-old tradition of leftists and fringe radicals, a mind massage of the public psyche is once again in the works. This time propaganda is being disseminated in the form of an endless repetition of a falsely-scripted phrase, which was likely created via focus groups.

Like the past not-so-catchy “existential threat to democracy” slogan that droned on and on in an effort to undermine President Trump’s reelection bid, Democrats and their media allies have an old new phrase with which to program people’s minds: the equally vapid “constitutional crisis.”

However, the real crisis that our country is facing is a fiscal one. A little clarification of the words “deficit” and “debt” is in order, two words that are routinely and unfortunately incorrectly used interchangeably.

In 2024 our nation had a deficit(spending beyond our means and having a shortfall in revenue so that we are unable to pay our bills) of almost $2 trillion.

The deficit amount simply gets added to the national debt(the money our country owes), which is currently more than $36 trillion.

The reality is that President Trump’s appointment of Musk to conduct a search-and-disclose expedition of a bloated bureaucratic executive branch is necessary, lawful, and constitutional.

President Trump named Musk in accordance with what Section 202 of Title 18 of the United States Code labels a “special government employee.”

Musk’s appointment is nothing new. Previous administrations have also had industry experts fill similar roles. Article II of the Constitution grants the president the power to appoint individuals to assist in carrying out the administration’s agenda.

As a result of his role as a defense contractor, Musk already holds high-level government security clearances. The rocket and satellite technology that he oversees has been used by the Department of Defense as well as many other departments of the U.S. government. And his Starlink satellite internet system has been invaluable in helping to assist domestic disaster relief efforts.

Democrats have been ignoring voters’ pleas for a more efficient and honest government. A recent survey conducted by McLaughlin & Associates indicated that 79% of the participants wanted Washington’s reckless borrowing and spending to be curtailed.

The DOGE quest for efficiency also includes serious efforts to reduce regulations. During President Trump’s first term, he had ordered that two old regulations would be eliminated for every new regulation created. His new approach in his second term is that for each new regulation, 10 regulations must be identified for elimination.

This appears to be the first time that an administration is actually scrutinizing the entire executive branch in earnest.

Why all the hysteria, anger, and crocodile tears from so many in the Democrat Party, federal offices, government agencies, liberal media, and activist organizations?

It’s only logical that the president, who is the chief executive of the executive branch, has the right and the duty to examine how agencies of the executive branch of government are spending federal dollars.

Certain parties are acting as if they want bureaucratic abuses to remain secret.

Guess it’s okay to sit back and enjoy the histrionics as long as we pray for DOGE’s success and our beloved country’s future.

Trump’s Free Speech Blueprint

So much has taken place over the last four years that Americans across the board have found objectionable.

One of the starkest examples may be what happened to our constitutional right to free speech.

Way too many individuals on social media found themselves in situations in which they were censored, persecuted, and punished over statements made on forums that were formerly thought to be free-wielding platforms.

Editorial pieces with “unapproved” content were shelved by newspapers and kept from public view.

Cable TV anchors heard whispers from producers, instructing them to change subjects should conversations happen to veer into “taboo” territory.

Public figures, which included political candidates, were vilified for bringing up “inconvenient” truths.

Labels, including “conspiracy theorist,” “extremist,” “wingnut,” and worse, were slapped on many who refused to wear the muzzle, thereby harming their reputations while simultaneously silencing them.

I could go on, but sadly the list seems endless.

Yes, free expression took a major hit, but hope is truly on the horizon, thanks to President elect Donald J. Trump, his close-knit circle, loyal supporters, and slew of newfound like-minded influential allies, including Elon Musk, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Tucker Carlson, Tulsi Gabbard, and Joe Rogan, to name a few.

Uber entrepreneur and “Dark MAGA” creator Musk recently shared a video that had been posted a while back. It features President elect Trump setting forth his plan to safeguard and restore free speech if (and now when) he assumes office.

In the video, he elaborates on the indispensable nature of free speech to our nation’s constitutional values, stating, “If we don’t have free speech, then we just don’t have a free country.”

He offers the additional warning that if freedom of expression were to continue to erode, other indispensable rights would fall like “dominoes.”

President elect Trump’s plans to restore First Amendment freedoms involve a number of common sense steps, including the following:

-The issuing of an executive order banning any federal department or agency from colluding with outside organizations to censor the speech of Americans.

-A prohibition on government money being used to label any domestic speech as “misinformation” or “disinformation.”

-A review of the federal workforce to identify and replace those involved in censoring speech.

-An effort to seek the reform of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which currently provides immunity for tech platforms. Modification would include placing limits on the power of tech companies to arbitrarily restrict lawful speech.

-The stopping of funding organizations that contribute to censorship, including colleges and universities that promote or engage in inappropriate or unlawful censorship.

-The creation of a “Digital Bill of Rights” that would ensure citizens have due process, that users are informed when their content is removed, that individuals are given clear reasons for decisions made, and that the right to appeal is in place, making judicial review and approval a prerequisite for the removal of certain online content.

Such policies will go a long way toward restoring our constitutional right to free speech.

Interestingly, on the day before the 2024 presidential election, two powerful media figures sat down for a conversation about the issues at stake in the then-looming election.

Musk spoke with Rogan.

After praising Musk for his purchase of Twitter, Rogan said, “I’m not exaggerating when I say you changed the course of history.”

The preeminent podcaster was talking about free expression.

Rogan explained that censorship and de-platforming by social media had severely impeded free speech across the U.S. landscape.

“We were headed down a path of unprecedented censorship and narrative control,” Rogan said to Musk.

What he was referring to is the notion that for speech to be free and remain an existing fundamental right, it must be free from government interference and corporate censorship.

The American notion of freedom cannot exist without these guardrails.

In great part, the understanding of the value of free speech to liberty and the commitment to end censorship have led to the formation of a powerful coalition of superheroes from all sides of the political aisle.

This coalition greatly contributed to the electoral earthquake that just occurred in our country.

Get ready to once again be able to agree and/or disagree to our hearts’ content.

And in between discussions and debates, breathe in the sweet air of free speech.

The Real Dangers of Artificial Intelligence

Over the past year, the technological development surrounding Artificial Intelligence (AI) has advanced much more rapidly than ever anticipated.

A recent letter, signed by Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, OpenAI co-founder Elon Musk, and additional AI experts and entrepreneurs, cautioned that a six-month pause needs to be placed on all new AI models.

Time published an article by founder of AI alignment Eliezer Yudkowsky, encouraging the implementation of a permanent global ban and international sanctions on any country pursuing AI research.

The high-profile figures are warning that AI technology is accelerating so quickly, machine systems will soon be able to perform, or even exceed, human intellectual functioning.

A majority of the nation shares the same concerns as the experts. According to a recent Monmouth University poll, 55% of Americans are worried about the threat of AI to the future of humanity.

And according to a Morning Consult survey, nearly half of those who participated would support a pause on advanced AI development.

Because the public has been able to access generative AI platforms that are capable of creating text and participating in human-like conversations, the two-letter acronym itself has been absorbed into the national lexicon.

The term “AI” was coined by a computer scientist back in 1956. At its simplest, Artificial Intelligence combines computer science algorithms with data in order to solve problems.

An algorithm is a list of instructions for specific actions to be carried out by computer technology in a step-by-step fashion. AI utilizes “machine learning,” which enables learning and adaptation to occur without explicit instructions being given.

The type of AI that is presently in use is designed to specialize in a single task; for instance, conducting a web search, determining the fastest route to a destination, or alerting the driver of a car to the presence of a vehicle in the car’s blind spot.

Such functions have oftentimes served to make the lives of individuals better, easier, safer, and so on.

However, it is critical to understand that existing AI is starkly different from the type of AI that is in the pipeline – Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).

This type has a benign sounding title, but it is nothing of the sort.

AGI can, and no likely will, match and even exceed human capability.

The point at which AGI exceeds human intelligence is known as “the singularity.” There have been gobs of books and films that have featured AI themes, based on the assumption that advanced AI could somehow turn against humans.

“2001: A Space Odyssey,” “The Matrix,” “The Terminator,” and “Blade Runner” all contained AGI warnings about things to come.

The fact of the matter is human beings program machines. So it stands to reason that should a given programmer err during the programming process, the resultant technology that is created will be flawed.

When it comes to ethics, the possession, or lack thereof, on the part of the programmer can result in the type of programming that may have catastrophic consequences.

This is because AI possesses the capacity to learn from its mistakes and adjust on its own, It may be able to improve itself to the point where human beings will lose control of their own invention.

The nightmare begins when the stop mechanism no longer functions.

In one of the unimaginable situations, we could have a super intelligent AI advance in a way that runs counter to all human morals, ethics, and values.

This tips into the realm of the spiritual, which requires a great deal of critical thought and further discussion.

For now, a pause is not only advisable, it’s a must.

Restore Newsmax to DirecTV and Score a Win for Our Free Speech Rights

To truly amass power, a would-be autocrat or totalitarian regime will typically suppress any criticism or dissent that might emanate from those who may wish to challenge such authority.

How is the sinister goal of silencing vast numbers of individuals or organizations reached? By controlling and/or eliminating the free flow of news and information within a society.

Examining Newsmax’s removal from DirecTV’s platform is critical in understanding what has happened to the Fourth Estate, what stage in the totalitarian process we are presently in, and what are the means by which we can make our way back to freedom.

In a 2020 Atlantic article, which was written by Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith and University of Arizona law professor Andrew Keane Woods, and recently referenced by legal scholar and law professor Jonathan Turley, the article’s authors stated that “in the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong.”

Characterizing “significant monitoring and speech control” as “inevitable,” the authors also determined that “governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with society norms and values.”

This translates into the First Amendment’s complete abolishment.

It is imperative therefore to focus on the recent action by DirecTV (AT&T’s satellite TV provider) in removing Newsmax (the fourth largest cable news channel) from its network, and doing so on the heels of the similar earlier removal of One America News from its lineup.

Twitter owner Elon Musk opened the eyes of so many with the release of the “Twitter Files.” These are internal messages that demonstrate the company, under previous ownership, interacted with government and law enforcement officials to block or restrict prominent right-of-center accounts.

To the rescue have come some heroic office holders that are currently working, via policy and law, to rescue free expression from the jaws of suppression.

The attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana have filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Louisiana against the White House and dozens of government officials, alleging that they have been coercing media to censor political criticisms, which is in direct violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

The outcome of the case is part of the valiant effort to restore the First Amendment to its proper place, and to also expose the “disinformation” ruse.

The attorneys general are responding to recent revelations that indicate news media companies, digital platforms and social media companies have worked in tandem with government officials to discriminate against the free expressions of their political opponents.

Andrew Bailey, Missouri’s new attorney general, was blunt in his language regarding administration officials.

“When, in the public forum, there is speech they disagree with and does not align with their political narratives they then collude with and coerce Big Tech’s social media to take that speech down.”

Via the discovery process attendant to the lawsuit, the depositions of administration officials and the production of documents have yielded evidence, which points to explicit and repeated censorship.

The legislatures of Florida and Texas have stepped into the free speech fray by passing new laws that help prevent digital platforms from removing content that is based on viewpoints involving politics, policies and the like.

The new Republican majority in the House has formed a select subcommittee to investigate what chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, described as routine government violations of the First Amendment’s protections.

Legislators have subpoenaed top tech executives of some of the tech industry’s biggest companies. They are conducting a probe into whether there was collusion between Silicon Valley and Washington, D.C. to suppress free speech.

Letters demand documents and communications, including any White House communications related to the regulation of content between the companies and administration officials.

Said documents and communications are being sought from Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella.

Perhaps legislators will consider adding the names of the executives who run DirecTV and AT&T to the list.

“Congress has an important role in protecting and advancing fundamental free speech principles, including by examining how private actors coordinate with the government to suppress First Amendment-protected speech,” Rep. Jordan’s office indicated in a statement.

So the free speech battle lines have been drawn. The fight to restore free speech in the digital media realm brings up a simple question.

How much ideological discrimination of speech should a free people tolerate?

Here’s the simple answer.

None.

Risking It All for the First Amendment, Elon-style

Thanks to Elon Musk’s release of the “Twitter Files,” it is now public knowledge that Twitter’s former executives were directed by government officials and campaign staffers to bury a report that contained information on an international influence-peddling scheme.

The scandal is a huge story, because it involves a Democratic Party nominee for the highest office in the land, just prior to the 2020 election.

Government officials were engaged in a supposed effort to address “disinformation.” However, said officials used social media companies to employ censorship, across media outlets of all types, of a story that was known full well to be accurate.

Among myriad other things, it was an attempt to influence an impending election.

Needless to say, the government’s involvement in the suppression of truth, with knowledge of same, is a violation of the First Amendment.

Although alarming in and of itself, what is perhaps even more disturbing is the tepid reaction at best, and indifferent response at worst, which has been exhibited on the part of the complicit media.

Woke-leaning venues ignored it and left-leaning outlets spun it.

Why does it matter? It makes all the difference in the world to those who seek truth, cherish freedom and love country.

Many press outlets have launched an attack against Elon himself. Personal remarks that have been directed at the CEO have been unfair, and in many cases, defamatory.

The radically intolerable judgmental left is in full takedown mode, characterizing Elon’s actions as those of an ambitious billionaire who seeks ever more wealth and power.

But how does one even begin to evaluate the sincerity of the motives and/or actions of fellow human beings?

One of the ways is to ask the question, What’s in it for them? That is, What do they have to gain?

Equally or even more telling is the question, What do they have to lose?

When we look at Elon’s position in the business world, it’s fairly obvious that he has a whole lot to lose in terms of tangible things. After all, he’s the richest person on the planet.

There’s also the matter of his reputation, an immaterial possession that many value even more than all of the material combined.

Yes, it could easily be said that Elon has risked everything in order to bring this important story to light.

In a recent “Twitter Spaces” appearance, the self-described Chief Twit engaged in a Q and A session.

He was asked a rather odd question about whether he was having any “suicidal thoughts.”

He replied, “I do not have any suicidal thoughts,” adding, “If I committed suicide, it’s not real.”

He also revealed that he perceives a greater risk to his personal safety, due to his widely reported actions at Twitter.

“Frankly, the risk of something bad happening or literally even being shot is quite significant,” he said. “I’m definitely not going to be doing any open-air car parades, let me put it that way.”

No exaggeration. Elon is risking his life, fortune and sacred honor.

When the First Amendment was adopted, the only institution with enough power to inhibit freedom of speech was the government. Now we know that big-tech companies are in on the speech-suppressing act. Whether ordered to or on a whim, they can muzzle us.

The Twitter Files confirm that our government worked directly with Big Tech. It was revealed that regular meetings took place between government and top executives of tech firms.

Thanks to Joe Rogan’s interview with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, it is now known that the same thing that was going on at Twitter was going on at Facebook.

It may be that some of those who were seeking to silence opposing views believed that they were resisting tyranny. If so, they were deluded. In reality, they were aiding and abetting tyranny.

In the words of Frederick Douglass, “Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist.”

Many believe that after death comes resurrection. Pray it is so with liberty.

We Are All James Woods

James Woods is well known for his accomplishments in the entertainment arts.

Consummate actor of stage and screen, he gained a considerable degree of fame for his role in the film adaptation of Joseph Wambaugh’s 1973 non-fiction book “The Onion Field,” a crime thriller extraordinaire.

Over the years James has had the opportunity to work with many a legendary Hollywood director, a distinguished roster that includes the names of David Cronenberg (“Videodrome”), Oliver Stone (“Salvador” and “Nixon”), Richard Attenborough (“Chaplin”), and Martin Scorsese (“Casino”).

In addition to the big-screen circuit, he has taken strolls down the TV road, playing characters the likes of America’s Mayor in the film “Rudy: The Rudy Giuliani Story.”

Industry trophies stand as a testament to his achievements. Among other accolades, he has two Oscar nominations and two Emmy wins to his credit.

Most recently, James has become a focal point of the so-called Twitter Files, the first in a series of documents released to journalist Matt Taibbi by Twitter CEO Elon Musk.

The files detail the behind-the-scenes communications surrounding Twitter’s content moderation decision making (under previous ownership), which involved, among other things, the suppression of a 2020 New York Post story about President Joe Biden’s son Hunter and Hunter’s notorious laptop.

During a recent two-hour long Twitter Spaces session, new Twitter owner Elon indicated that a second drop of Twitter Files will take place at an undisclosed future date, files that will go to Taibbi and Bari Weiss, an additional journalist.

The documents highlight how, just prior to the 2020 presidential election, Twitter executives worked closely with Democrats to eliminate content that was highly inconvenient for them.

The company’s rationale at the time for the extraordinary censorship imposed was that the story constituted “hacked materials,” a determination questioned by many insiders.

The New York Post had made it clear that a computer repairman had the laptop in his possession because Hunter himself had dropped it off.

There was never any hacking.

In simple terms, then-Twitter executives characterized a story that did not emanate from hacked material, as exactly the opposite – hacked material. This was likely done to explicitly hide the facts from an unknowing public.

Files also reveal that Twitter seemingly complied with the Democratic Party’s directives in suppressing the accounts of select celebrities, quite strikingly the account of James Woods.

In the words of Taibbi, “Celebrities and unknowns alike could be removed or reviewed at the behest of a political party.”

James has stepped forward to lead a class action lawsuit against the social media platform as well as the DNC over damage done to his personal civil rights, reputation and career.

“How would you like to fund a class action suit for those who were suppressed?” James asked Elon in a tweet. “I’ll be happy to be lead plaintiff.”

In a recent interview, James emphasized his intent to file a lawsuit over the Twitter matter.

“I can guarantee you one thing more than anything else you’ll ever hear in your life: I will be getting a lawyer. I will be suing the Democratic National Committee no matter what,” he stated.

“Whether I win or lose, I am going to stand up for the rights that every American [is entitled to]…,” James said.

James knows what informed individuals know; that the rights of each and every American are now on the line.

The Taibbi posts also confirmed that former Twitter executive Vijaya Gadde was central to the New York Post‘s suppression of the Hunter laptop story.

Gadde, the social media platform’s former head of something called “legal, policy, and trust,” was later appointed by the Biden administration as an advisor to the Department of Homeland Security in its supposed effort to counter “disinformation.”

Gadde is sure to be brought before the House Judiciary Committee when Republicans take control in January 2023.

“We’re tracking Vijaya Gadde’s role in the suppression of the New York Post story on Hunter Biden’s laptop. We absolutely plan to investigate this more. Stay tuned,” a committee spokesperson told the New York Post.

For his part, Rep. James Comer (R-KY) has said that anyone at Twitter who was involved in censoring The Post’s story will be testifying to the House Oversight Committee.

In response to the report, Rep. Comer said that he wants to bring in “every employee at Twitter who was involved in suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story” to “explain their actions to the American people.”

He also referred to the Twitter ban as “election suppression.”

Polls have indicated that if voters had known about the Hunter story prior to the 2020 election, the information would have had a determinative impact on the outcome.

According to Taibbi, the only Democrat in Congress who seemed to react to the suppression was Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), who deserves credit for reminding his colleagues that the nation must be guided by First Amendment principles.

Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY) gave a brief summation on what has been revealed to the world by Elon.

“Twitter helped the Biden campaign & Democratic lawmakers to conceal information days before a presidential election. This type of suppression of free speech and information sharing is indefensible,” Rep. Malliotakis said, adding, “House Republicans must thoroughly investigate this matter to ensure big tech is reined in.”

James is hoping that others are going to join him in his fight within the court system.

He has let it be known that he is not one to shy away from legal battles.

“I’ve been a target of these people for six years. They have destroyed my career. They have destroyed my livelihood. They’ve destroyed my faith in a country that my family has defended in the military since the Revolutionary War,” he said.

Spoken like someone with the heart of a patriot.

Here’s hoping that more join James Woods in heart and deed.