Tag: Trump

Lack of Authenticity Spells Doom for the Democrat Party

Democrats have been making the rounds on podcasts, cussing up a storm, singing sixties songs, and putting on their best tough guy and gal faces.

It’s all a desperate attempt to win back the voters they lost along the way to the Land of Woke.

Negative public feedback as well as pathetic polling results indicate their antics aren’t working. But they keep on trying.

Apparently, no one has told them yet that it is impossible to resonate with people if you haven’t got a message that’s worth hearing.

Envious of President Donald Trump’s positive poll numbers as well as his widespread appeal, Democrats have adopted a cheap imitation strategy in hopes of once again duping folks.

Recent stunts by Dems include former veep Kamala Harris’s unofficial beer summit with late-night host Stephen Colbert, Left Coast congressman Eric Swalwell’s anti-GOP jaw-flapping gym session, and Garden State Cory Booker’s “Jersey Shores”-style rant on the Senate floor.

Their machinations have consistently come across as unimaginative, juvenile, and inauthentic.

Why would prominent Democrat figures engage in such undignified behavior? The numbers provide the likely explanation.

According to The New York Times, when it comes to voter registration, Democrats are “bleeding support beyond the ballot box.” All of the 30 states that track voter registration by political party measured severe drops in Democratic Party registrations in between the elections of 2020 and 2024.

A recent survey from CNBC indicates that the Dem’s net favorability has hit a near three-decade low.

The Democratic Party carries a -32 net favorability rating among registered voters, which is the lowest rating for either the Democratic or Republican Party going as far back as1996.

The Dems have a 24 % positive rating and a 56 % negative rating.

A recent YouGov poll shows that 58% of Democratic voters view their leaders as “out of touch,” compared to only 42% of Republicans who view their leaders in the same way.

A recent Gallup poll indicates that 54% of Americans trust Republicans more on economic issues, compared to 39% for Democrats.

The numbers suggest that people are seeing through the political theatrics. The Democrats lost 2.1 million registered voters across 30 states and Washington, D.C., while Republicans gained 2.4 million registered voters.

These numbers reflect the self-evident principle that authenticity is something that cannot be concocted.

Democrats, many of whom have presidential ambitions, are attempting to duplicate President Trump’s communication and leadership style. Interestingly, pretending to be him just isn’t cutting it.

That’s because President Trump isn’t method acting. He’s himself 24/7. His comments resonate because they are routinely unscripted, unvarnished, and unapologetic. The exact opposite of the Dem Trump wannabes.

While the Democrats have been hard at work creating TikTok videos, President Trump has been hard at work solving problems. He makes sure that he updates the public each day, reporting on issues that have been resolved and those still in need of tackling. And he spells all of it out in primary colors so we don’t have to carry a pocket dictionary or woke wordbook to figure out what he’s trying to tell us.

Democrats are seemingly stuck in an unending sequel to High School Musical. They may be having fun but they don’t realize they aren’t being laughed with, they’re being laughed at, in addition to subsequently being ignored.

The backlash on social media confirms that their calculated spectacles are backfiring, perceived by the public as second-rate and utterly fake.

Reportedly, Democratic strategists have privately warned that the approach risks turning candidates into caricatures. Recent polling data indicate that voters want political candidates to be real. A Rasmussen survey from early 2025 shows 63% of the all-important independents say they’re less likely to vote for candidates who “try to act like someone they’re not.”

The younger voter demographic that Democrats covet appear to be increasingly apathetic. Only 49% of Gen Z voters plan to turn out in 2026, according to a recent Tufts University study. This number is down from the 57% seen in 2020.

The reason for the drop is simple. Many of the young people cited distrust of politicians, who in their words are “pretending to be like us,” as the reason for their pulling away.

Authenticity is a difficult concept to describe, but humans seem to have an inner sense of whether or not a fellow human being is being genuine.

In terms of the way in which Dems have been behaving, folks additionally sense what authenticity is not about.

It’s not about mugging for the cameras, showing off one’s talents or lack thereof, chasing internet fame, or channeling another person’s persona.

With regard to public service, authenticity is about being honest about who you are, straightforward about what you stand for, and resolute in putting the needs of your constituents ahead of your own. Things that the current iteration of the Democrat Party either can’t or won’t do.

If the Democrat Party doesn’t learn the authenticity lesson in a hurry, the curtain just may come down before the play is over.

James Comey’s Stumble on the Beach

In a recent post on his Instagram account, former FBI Director James Comey put up a photo of seashells on the sand that had been arranged to form the following pair of numbers: 86 47.

Accompanying the photo was a not so cryptic comment from Comey: “Cool shell formation on my beach walk.”

The social media subsequently exploded with reactions from individuals who were outraged over the post.

Comey responded with another post, alleging that he “didn’t realize some folks associate it [the number 86] with violence.” He added that he is “opposed to violence in all circumstances,” and he took down the original post.

To say that Comey’s comments regarding the number 86 stretch the boundaries of credibility is an understatement, especially when you consider who Comey is, the position in government that he previously held, and the individual with whom the number 47 is associated.

As a high-ranking law enforcement official, Comey’s prior duties included the prosecution of participants in organized crime. Such participants routinely use the number 86 as a code word for “assassination.”

According to Cassell’s Dictionary of Slang, the number 86 means “to kill, to murder; to execute judicially.”

Perhaps surprisingly for Comey, the seriousness of his wholly ill-advised post appears to be increasing with the passage of time. This is because the individual with whom the second seashell number is associated was saved by God’s grace from two attempts of the first seashell number’s kind.

In fact, Homeland Security Department Secretary Kristi Noem announced that the agency she heads as well as the Secret Service are investigating the matter.

FBI Director Kash Patel and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have also joined in the investigative tasks.

Director Patel indicated that the FBI is ready to assist the Secret Service with “all necessary support.” And Director Gabbard stressed that the administration and the Secret Service are taking the incident “very seriously.”

“There has to be accountability for this,” Director Gabbard told Fox News host Jesse Watters.

Predictably, the mainstream media have failed in their responsibility to objectively and truthfully report on the story. Instead they appear to be carrying water for the former FBI director.

Headlines about the incident speak volumes, as demonstrated below:

— “With Comey questioning, the Trump administration again targets speech” (The Washington Post)

— “The old slang term ‘86’ probably started as restaurant-worker jargon. Suddenly it’s in the news” (The Associated Press)

— “Trump admin’s Comey investigation is meant to stoke a culture of fear among Americans” (MSNBC)

— “Ex-FBI boss interviewed by Secret Service over Trump seashell post” (The BBC)

It just so happens that Comey’s seashell encounter during his stroll on the beach occurred just a few days prior to the release of his latest book. Could it have been a way to generate some pre-release buzz? In any event, he has been making the rounds on every media outlet that is willing to pitch him softballs.

While appearing on MSNBC with Nicole Wallace, he seemed to take on the role of victim.

“You are back in the middle of a political firestorm,” Wallace said.

Comey responded, “Yeah, for walking on the beach with my wife.”

He went on to describe himself as “a grandfather and an author wearing sweaters and jeans,” explaining that he had “posted a silly picture of shells” that he apparently “thought was a clever way to express a political viewpoint…”

A political viewpoint? FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino sees it very differently.

In a post on X, Deputy Director Bongino said that the numeric symbolism was being used by copycats to send out threats that the FBI is mandated to investigate, which requires valuable time and resources.

“We are now dealing with copycats, sending cryptic threats to public figures, using the ‘86’ reference,” Deputy Director Bongino wrote. “Whether they turn out to be legitimate threats or not, taxpayer-funded public safety agents are going to have to run these all out and investigate them.”

If a prosecution against Comey is sought, it is likely to be a difficult one, considering free speech and intent arguments. However, time will tell whether other significant facts will emerge that justify legal action against the former FBI director.

In the meantime, many like me are still hoping that the haters’ hardened hearts are transformed.

Still sending up prayers, too, for the one who despite the hate, fights on anyway.

Impeachment Is the Remedy for Judges Who Usurp Authority

In a recent blatantly illegal ruling, an Obama-appointed federal judge interfered with the legitimate powers of the president.

In his ruling, District Court Judge James Boasberg ordered the Trump administration not to deport a group of Venezuelan nationals who pose a danger to our country.

In an apparent attempt to thwart President Donald Trump’s agenda, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking judicial intervention in halting the removal of terrorist gang members from the United States.

Within a few hours of the filing, Judge Boasberg issued a ruling complying with the left’s request. He granted a restraining order that sought to prevent the administration’s implementation of the president’s proclamation for a time period of 14 days.

In a further overreach, the judge ordered an aircraft that was en route to deport the illegal immigrants to return back to the U.S.

“Any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States however that is accomplished,” Judge Boasberg wrote.

Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that the judge’s order “disregards well-established authority regarding President Trump’s power, and it puts the public and law enforcement at risk.”

In an emergency filing, the Trump administration appealed the order with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals so that Judge Boasberg’s order would be placed on hold.

The appeal noted that if the order were allowed to stand “district courts would have license to enjoin virtually any urgent national-security action just upon receipt of a complaint.”

Interestingly, the president hadn’t yet signed a proclamation on the matter at the time the lawsuit was filed by the ACLU and other left-wing groups.

The Trump administration was correct to point out the fact that halting a presidential act before it has been announced would neutralize the executive branch.

The Venezuelan nationals in question happen to be members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), an international gang that has officially been declared by the Trump administration to be a terrorist organization.

The gang became part of a national news story following last year’s armed takeover by TdA of apartment complexes in Aurora, Colorado. It continues to victimize numerous other cities across the country.

TdA is linked to a narco-terrorism enterprise based in Venezuela and sponsored by the Nicolás Maduro regime. Members continually exhibit unspeakably brutal behavior and are additionally involved in the facilitation of human trafficking, drug peddling, kidnapping, extortion, and other heinous activities.

In order to protect the public from the Venezuelan gang, President Trump has done what other presidents before him have also done. He has invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

Within his capacity as chief executive of the nation, President Trump possesses the explicit power, designated in Article II of the Constitution, to identify threats to the country and act accordingly to protect the American people.

In the proclamation, President Trump asserted that the regime of Venezuelan President Maduro “is a hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States, and which poses a substantial danger to the United States.”

Judge Boasberg has ordered members of the TdA gang to be brought back into our country. It is important to note this is the same judge who was in charge of the FISA Court, when that court was used to illegally spy on President Trump.

Judge Boasberg’s March 15 order was issued after Venezuelan gang members were already in transport via plane to the country of El Salvador.

“Today, the first 238 members of the Venezuelan criminal organization, Tren de Aragua, arrived in our country,” El Salvador President Nayib Bukele posted on X.

He added, “They were immediately transferred to CECOT, the Terrorism Confinement Center, for a period of one year (renewable).”

In response to Judge Boasberg’s order, President Bukele posted the following: “Oopsie… Too late.”

Congress is the branch that has within its power the ability to impeach federal judges who abuse their authority. It has done so in the past.

To this end, Rep. Brandon Gill, R-TX, indicated in a post on X that he will be filing the necessary paperwork to impeach Judge Boasberg.

Elon Musk reposted the tweet and wrote that the impeachment is “necessary.”

In my legal opinion, if ever there were a case in which a judge was deserving of impeachment, this is it.

Unfortunately, activist judges have increasingly been intruding upon executive authority.

Judge Boasberg’s ruling is one of the most egregious examples of the violation of the fundamental constitutional principle of separation of powers — that crucial system of checks and balances between the three branches of the federal government.

Judge Boasberg, you’ve earned it. And for the good of the country, hopefully you will soon own it.

The Rising Power of the Podcast

An interesting thing is happening in the new “Golden Age of America.” The mainstream media are quietly fading away.

Although former media giants have been losing their credibility, influence, and audiences for a quite a stretch of time, things really seem to have accelerated over the past couple of weeks.

Most recently, a string of mainstream anti-Trump media figures have given up their positions, including Jim Acosta who exited CNN, Chuck Todd who fled NBC News, Norah O’Donnell who left CBS News, Andrea Mitchell who vacated her MSNBC anchor chair, and Neil Cavuto who waved good-by to Fox News.

Thanks in large part to a whole lot of fake reporting, many left-leaning outlets had simply lost the public trust. That’s when the media vehicles of podcasting and streaming stepped up to provide a much-needed alternative to ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.

And what happened is quite remarkable. New media figures that were accurate, informative, and real became more powerful and more influential than their media predecessors had been.

Acosta’s former employer generally brings in less than 400,000 viewers during primetime hours. On the other hand, Joe Rogan, who hosts one of the top three podcasts in the world, averages 11 million viewers per episode.

As a result of the changing media landscape, leftist media outlets are no longer able to control the narrative.

One contributing factor in the newfound success of podcasts is the growth of Gen Z (ages 13 to 24) audiences.

Edison Research found that 47 percent of the Gen Z online population (an estimated 24 million Americans) are monthly podcast listeners.

Interestingly, podcasters played a significant role in the landslide victory of President Donald Trump. According to a Bloomberg report, a group of highly popular podcasters and streamers rose to become the new mainstream source of information for millions of young males.

In the report, 9 podcasters were specifically cited: Adin Ross, Andrew Schulz, The Nelk Boys, Logan Paul, Joe Rogan, Lex Friedman, Patrick Bet-David, Shawn Ryan, and Theo Von.

In one impactful episode, Rogan interviewed then-GOP presidential nominee Trump during the final weeks of the 2024 presidential campaign. The podcast drew more than 50 million views on YouTube.

During the 2024 campaign cycle, nominees of both parties courted podcasters in an effort to seek support from voters who increasingly obtained their news information from non-traditional sources.

Vice President and Democrat presidential nominee Kamala Harris scheduled an interview with Alex Cooper for her “Call Her Daddy” podcast. Harris also sat with the hosts of the “All the Smoke” podcast for some Bay Area basketball talk.

Meanwhile, with the help of his son Barron’s media savvy, Trump focused on getting his MAGA message out via podcasts especially to young male voters.

It was inevitable that media changes would eventually come to White House press briefings and elsewhere in the government, including the Pentagon.

As part of the alternative media ecosystem, podcasters have been afforded seats at the table where they are permitted to ask questions at press briefings, much to the disdain of the establishment press.

At her second press briefing, John Ashbrook of the Ruthless podcast was allowed to ask White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt a question.

Ashbrook, a former campaign strategist to Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., sat in the “new media” seat among chairs that in prior administrations had been reserved for members of the White House press corps.

Leavitt called the Ruthless podcast “one of the most influential podcasts in America.”

Meanwhile over at the Pentagon Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth booted formerly prestigious media outlets from the Pentagon’s press offices to make room for new media organizations. The New York Times, NBC News, NPR, and Politico were told to evacuate their Pentagon office spaces by Valentine’s Day.

In their places, three new outlets were welcomed, The New York Post, One America News Network, and the Breitbart News Network.

As the new media kids on the block, podcasts have had an impressive beginning.

In my opinion, they’ve only just begun to wield their media power.

Birthright Citizenship and Five Little Words

An activist federal judge has blocked a key executive order that was recently implemented by President Donald Trump.

The executive order that was signed by President Trump does away with birthright citizenship, i.e., the granting of full citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens who are physically present in the United States.

The order is part and parcel of the president’s overall border reform package.

Several lawsuits have been initiated by states that are opposed to the order. In addition, the ACLU has taken it upon itself to be a representative for a number of left-wing groups in bringing legal action.

In my legal assessment, by issuing the executive order on birthright citizenship, President Trump is prompting the courts to clarify and rule on the language, meaning, and substance of what the law actually states.

For quite a long time government institutions have allowed policies to be implemented apart from the law, policies that deem all persons born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents are citizens.

However, the United States Constitution does not necessitate this policy. In fact, there is nothing in either the Constitution or in any federal statute that grants birthright citizenship to a child born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents.

What appears to be a complex issue actually isn’t. A look back at constitutional history provides quite a bit of insight and may help to clarify things.

The most repugnant decision in Supreme Court history took place in 1857, when the High Court issued its ruling on the Dred Scott v. Sandford case. The Court held that U.S.-born descendants of African slaves were not citizens.

In response to the Dred Scott decision, when the Civil War ended Congress did two things.

First, it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Second, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was drafted and passed, which took the protections of the Civil Rights Act and incorporated them into the text of the Constitution.

The goal was a singular one: To grant citizenship to formerly enslaved people.

The amendment does not say that all children born in the United States are citizens. The drafters of the amendment would have used different language if this were the intention. But they didn’t.

The Fourteenth Amendment, as approved and written, states the following: “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens.

It is important to note the conditional phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The original meaning of the phrase has to do with the concept of political allegiance.

Senator Lyman Trumbull, who was one of the principal figures involved in the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment, spelled it out. Individuals who owed allegiance to or were subject to a foreign power were not granted citizenship by the amendment.

Clearly, the language of the Fourteenth Amendment didn’t apply to everyone born here. Children of tribally-affiliated Native Americans as well as diplomats were not included in the extension of citizenship, even if they were born in the U.S.

The historical reasoning that excluded tribally affiliated Native Americans and diplomats from birthright citizenship applies equally to those who are illegally present in our country today.

Why? Because illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” of the United States in that their first contact with the U.S. was an illegal act, and additionally they maintain citizenship with another country while illegally residing in the U.S.

In an apparent attempt to bolster their arguments, opponents of President Trump’s executive order bring up the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong. This case involved a child born in the U.S. during a period when federal law barred Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized citizens.

However, the High Court’s decision was predicated on the fact that the child’s Chinese parents were in the country lawfully and permanently. In other words, the case dealt with a child born to parents who were both legal immigrants.

Truth be known, the Supreme Court has never had to deal with a birthright citizenship case involving children born to parents living in the country illegally.

Looks like the High Court will have to now.

Hopefully, the Justices will be paying close attention to the 5 little words and will rule accordingly.

ABC News and Stephanopoulos Give Trump an Early Christmas

ABC News and anchor George Stephanopoulos recently settled a lawsuit with President elect Donald Trump.

The terms of the agreement have the defendants in the suit forking over $15 million to the incoming prez, the money being designated for a future presidential library or similar foundation.

Also included in the settlement is a forced payment of $1 million of Trump’s legal fees and a big crow-eating apology.

Trump had filed a lawsuit over an interview that Stephanopoulos had conducted with South Carolina congressional representative Nancy Mace.

During the Mace interview, the former Clinton administration operative repeatedly made the false allegation that Trump had been found liable for rape in a civil case that was initiated by E. Jean Carroll and took place in a New York courtroom earlier in the year.

Rep. Mace, a rape survivor herself, was being interrogated on her endorsement of Trump, and Stephanopoulos was evidently trying to paint her as a hypocrite. She felt personally attacked by Stephanopoulos and was brave enough to directly take him on at the time.

“I live with shame,” she said. “And you’re asking me a question about my political choices, trying to shame me as a rape victim — I find it disgusting.”

Most viewers did as well. ABC News had a serious problem from that moment on.

Shortly after the interview aired, Trump filed a defamation lawsuit against both the network and the anchor.

Stephanopoulos subsequently appeared on a politically friendly late-night show with host Stephen Colbert, posturing about the then-pending defamation legal action and boasting that he would not be “cowed out of doing my job because of a threat.”

All things considered, the most compelling part of the Trump win came in the portion of the settlement in which both ABC News and Stephanopoulos agreed to issue apology statements, expressing regret surrounding the case.

Both the settlement agreement and apology statements have already had far-reaching effects. Stephanopoulos has deactivated his X account and left the platform.

While the settlement has been heralded by center-right folks, it has also been viewed as the end of Western Civilization by the compromised media crowd and woke mob gang.

Regarding the settlement, reporter Oliver Willis wrote on Threads, “This is actually how democracy dies.”

Sharon Waxman, editor in chief of the Hollywood trade outlet TheWrap, wrote. “This is both confusing and disheartening. #Disney and #ABC caving to Trump.”

Democrat attorney Marc Elias posted, “Knee bent. Ring kissed. Another legacy news outlet chooses obedience.”

CNN media analyst Brian Stelter asked on X, “Why did ABC agree to pay and apologize? The network won’t say. It could have kept fighting in court, but decided to pay $$ to end the dispute and make the case go away.”

NPR TV critic Eric Deggans wrote on his X account, “Wow. Feels like one more mainstream news organization bending the knee.”

Keith Olbermann sarcastically posted, “What a great look @abc News.”

Left leaning legal analyst Allison Gill, known online as Mueller, She Wrote posted, “This is so gross.

Why not depose him [Trump]?” she asked. “The case wouldn’t cost more than $15M and ABC would have won if they bothered fighting.”

Human rights lawyer Qasim Rashid characterized the settlement as “the cowardice of legacy media out to make profit, rather than uphold principle.”

Here in the United States, a 1964 landmark Supreme Court case made it far more difficult for public figures, as opposed to ordinary folks, to sue for defamation. This is not the case in many other parts of the world.

In my opinion, reform in this area of the law is long overdue.

The timing of the ABC-Stephanopoulos settlement is interesting to say the least. It occurred a few short days after U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisette Reid ordered the president elect, and more importantly Stephanopoulos, to submit to depositions of four hours in length.

The ABC News-Stephanopoulos settlement sends a powerful message. It is one that says news personalities, especially those who work for far-left media outlets, can no longer broadcast false claims in the cavalier manner that they have become accustomed to.

An early Christmas present for those who value truth in news reporting.

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.