YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and the rest are enemies of the American People!

They are liars who discriminate against Conservatives and they also endorse anti-white Bigotry and hatred!

As just one example, I would like for you to go watch this PragerU video. YouTube now mislabels PragerU videos as “Fundraisers” which you will see in the photo below or at YouTube on PragerU videos. This is a LIE designed to imply the video is nothing more than a fundraiser, when in fact it’s NOT a fundraiser at all!

YouTube has put this label on PragerU videos in hopes of reducing the videos views! It is just one more example of the DISCRIMINATION faced by conservatives everywhere they go on social media!

I want every American to realize that we have no business whatsoever on YouTube, Google, Twitter, or Facebook! These corporations HATE YOU and discriminate against people like you! WHY would you use their platforms and make them money????

These platforms get paid by how many “Active Users” they have on a daily basis! It’s time for Americans to become pro-active in ending Censorship & Discrimination. You do that by LEAVING THESE PLATFORMS!

I don’t write a whole lot of articles myself, I’m more of “The sharing guy” who just likes to share interesting articles with like-minded folks. But we as Americans are under attack! Our freedoms are being taken away in an unconstitutional manner by an out of control government who has teamed up with big tech. I call them the “Tech Nazis” and they are almost identical to the actual Nazis!

Your telephone is another source of income for these people! If you have an iPhone you should get rid of it! Apple products CANNOT be made secure! Google now produces Android phones and loads them down with spyware which cannot be removed!

But did you know that you can REMOVE the Google spyware? “Android” is actually open source software which has been manipulated by Google to spy on you. You can root your phone and install “GrapheneOS” on your Android device which will remove ALL GOOGLE APPS AND SPYWARE!!!

We are at WAR! I believe it’s time that we STOP allowing the enemy to listen to our calls and witness every transaction we make! Don’t you??? Quit using the platforms that censor you and quit using a phone that spies on you!

PLEASE look into getting a phone that you can secure! STOP allowing Google to track you and watch your every move! Here’s a couple of links you may find helpful, on how to secure your phone!

Rob Braxman Tech will actually build you a phone using GrapheneOS for a fee! This is a video about phone security by Rob Braxman.

What it’s like to use a De-Googled phone in real life? (Q&A of concerns)

There are other open source Android Operating Systems as well, you should do your research. Rob happens to make a living securing phones and computers, I highly recommend contacting him for advice! (Or just have him do it for you)

Here’s an article from LifeHacker about de-Googling your phone. Be warned, it is a technical process! Which is why I’d just buy one from Rob Braxman! But you decide.

My point is simple folks. It’s time for Americans to STOP using platforms which HATE & CENSOR YOU and STOP buying things from “Woke” companies! Every dollar you give to these people WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU & YOUR “CAUSE”

The Vaccine Bill of Rights

America’s Frontline Doctors Unveil New ‘Vaccine Bill of Rights’ and YOU need to contact YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES and demand they PASS IT!!!

YOUR RIGHTS are being systematically eliminated in the name of medical Tyranny! It’s time for you to fight back!


A MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTION for the State of [INSERT STATE] to protect its citizens against unconstitutional and medically irresponsible COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

Whereas the Founders designated that a Bill of Rights was necessary to guard individual liberty against encroachments from state and federal actors, public and private; and

Whereas the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly directs states not to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”; and

Whereas no COVID vaccine is FDA-approved but some are authorized under a temporary Emergency Use Authorization as experimental (investigational) agents only; and

Whereas emergency use products are specifically prohibited by federal law 21 U.S.C. §360bbb-3 from being mandated: “Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies … require …the option to accept or refuse administration of the product”; and

Whereas the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) affirmed in August 2020 that under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), experimental vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory”; and

Whereas decades-old universally accepted Codes of Medical Ethics, including the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki absolutely prohibits any form of coercion whatsoever to individuals participate in a medical experiment; and

Whereas 40 percent of respondents in at least one US poll reported that they would opt out of taking experimental COVID vaccines; and

Whereas it is neither feasible nor safe to mandate experimental vaccination given the large number of COVID-19 recovered patients in the general population and the FDA/Pfizer/ Moderna protocols which excluded COVID-19 recovered patients; and

Whereas it is neither feasible nor safe to administer experimental vaccines to many groups of patients, such as persons with post-natural infections, waning titers, allergic reactions, as well as childbearing women, etc.; and

Whereas public and private measures are nonetheless being considered to mandate experimental vaccinations in order to participate in certain public activities and functions of daily American life, including but not limited to: employment, in-person school attendance, public transportation, and concert performances; and

Whereas “vaccine passports,” “digital health IDs,” and other such required documentation pose substantial risks to personal privacy and equal treatment before the law for all citizens of [INSERT STATE] as well as the United States generally; and

Whereas administration of the experimental COVID-19 vaccines according to guidelines established by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices do not provide adequate protections for average Americans concerned about potential health hazards associated with the inoculations; and

Whereas the public is entitled to receive unbiased, transparent, easily accessible medical information related to all vaccines from their public health officials; and

Whereas the emergency powers assumed by the chief executives of certain states as well as municipal leaders violate certain unalienable rights guaranteed under the US Constitution and its and Bill of Rights and therefore deserve redress; and

Whereas while these legitimate grievances are pursued by the courts of various states, state lawmakers must enshrine certain rights against encroachment by decrees that are not medically or scientifically indicated, such as vaccine mandates, in order to ensure the continuity of these rights; and

Whereas that a COVID-19 Vaccine Bill of Rights memorialized by this resolution against COVID-19 vaccine mandates provides an example of adoption for other legislative bodies across the United States to be recognized and upheld by the attorneys general of those states; and

Whereas that the major principles of this Vaccine Bill of Rights will include a minimum of four

(4) of the following six (6) provisions:

●      No persons will be mandated, coerced, forced or pressured to take an experimental or “investigational” medication.

●      No physician or nurse shall be asked by an employer to promote a COVID-19 vaccine.

●      All persons reserve the right, at all times, to determine what is in their own best medical interest without threat to their livelihood or freedom of movement.

●      All persons must be given access to independent information to help them determine what is in their own best medical interest, including the risk of death based upon age/condition from contracting COVID-19 naturally. This must include information from sources that are independent of a conflict of interest. For example, pharmaceutical companies have an inherent conflict of interest, as do government or quasi-government institutions. Such information can be included but cannot be the sole source of information.

●      The frail elderly are additionally entitled to a knowledgeable, independent advocate with medical training to help them determine their own medical interest.

●      Private businesses operating within the jurisdiction have no legal authority to require or mandate or coerce medication or experimental medication for any persons; and

Whereas technical guidance for employers released by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in December should not be understood to undermine employee constitutional rights laid out herein; and

Whereas state legislative bodies must practice oversight of such federal assistance consistent with their enumerated powers; and

Whereas out-of-state commercial vendors, including Ticketmaster, cannot require venue operators and organizers to mandate proof of vaccination from concertgoers and other paying customers before freely entering a venue on private or public property; and

Whereas K-12 vaccinations cannot be required without certain clear and consistent exemptions applied, among them medical and conscience clauses, or risk forfeiting a district’s or school board’s authority in the State of [INSERT STATE] to authorize such a mandate, nor can a vaccine mandate for these populations be a factor in state school-aid funding; and

Whereas interstate carriers such as airlines and all forms of public transit calling for so-called “vaccine passports” as a condition of entry cannot be allowed to operate with state licensure and waivers, and furthermore this resolution would call on federal entities such as the FAA to issue new rules prohibiting COVID-19 vaccine mandates for all carrier crews and customers; and

Therefore, be it resolved that the legislature of [INSERT STATE] memorializes a COVID-19 Vaccine Bill of Rights for the purposes of defending the constitutional liberties of its citizens, promoting sound science, and outlining a framework of best practices for state authorities and federal regulators to develop in this evolving phase of experimental vaccine administration and implementation.

Be it further resolved that copies of this resolution be sent to the President of the United States, the United States House of Representatives, the United States Senate, the Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

Source: The Vaccine Bill of Rights

The entire release can be found here: AFD Bill of Rights

Gina Carano fired for telling the TRUTH!

Anyone who is actually paying attention to leftists simply cannot deny their actions are very similar to those of the Nazi Party!

Trump supporters are attacked in the streets by people who won’t be held accountable, just like the Jews were in Germany as Hitler’s Nazi Party rose to power!!! It is very similar indeed!

You can also compare the treatment of Trump supporters, and all white people for that matter, to the treatment of the Kulaks in Ukraine under Lenin, or Jews under the Nazis! The Left has embraced Tyranny fully and completely. They endorse silencing people on social media AND arresting those who disagree with them.

They have embraced anti-white bigotry and hatred, and are promoting openly Racist viewpoints! It’s amazing to me these people can survive in American politics! I mean how can a sane person endorse open racists & Communists in the United States of America? I mean these people endorse the #1619Project which is nothing more than a revisionist history fairy tale!!!

Here’s a video from Salty Cracker on YourScrewed.

Leftists don’t like for people to know that they embrace the EXACT SAME TACTICS as did Adolph Hitler and Vladimir Lenin, but anyone paying attention can see the similarities! It’s kinda like the Tyrant dictators of the world wrote a playbook of how they took power, and then gave it to the leftists of today, and they ran with it! I’m not being hyperbolic either! This is all 100% factual! These comparisons are REAL and ACCURATE!!!

The “brown-shirts” were just like Antifa! The democrats of America have decided that they cannot win election by the people of the United States, so they MUST go full on TYRANT!

George Soros has funded the election campaigns of literally hundreds of Attorney Generals in the United States so that he can direct them to prosecute conservatives who have broken no laws, while they do not prosecute violent criminals who have actually harmed people! We have laws on the books that deal with this type of behavior, but the problem is that leftists have also infiltrated the Department of Justice and the FBI!

What good is a law that is not enforced? What good is a “Law-man” who selectively enforces the law? Selective prosecution is where you allow your buddies to break the law and go without prosecution, while you prosecute others for doing the same exact thing! There is no more criminal of an act in my opinion!

Those who enforce the law take an “oath of office” in which they swear to “uphold the law” and uphold the Constitution of the United States. That oath does not say “uphold the law when you want to” and it also does not say “uphold the Constitution when you feel like it” it says to uphold the law!!!

The Constitution outlines the limits of government power AND affords citizens certain protections of their God-given, natural rights! The constitution does not give them these rights, it recognizes THEY EXIST, and outlines that government is “Created to protect those rights”

But that is not what government is currently doing!!! They are acting to violate your rights! At least if you are white and/or a Trump supporter! We have a department of justice AND the Department of Justice has a “Civil Rights division”……….. the problem is that they are NOT doing their jobs! EVERY AMERICAN should have already filed multiple lawsuits against their state governments for the unconstitutional lockdowns and business closures! It’s the ONLY WAY you’ll get justice. Secondly, EVERY AMERICAN needs to be active in their local politics!!!

YOU or one of your neighbors MUST CHALLENGE EVERY INCUMBENT POLITICIAN IN YOUR STATE & LOCAL ELECTION!!! The American People MUST replace every incumbent politician in this country or it simply won’t survive! We can defeat them, but we MUST win the LOCAL PRIMARY ELECTION in every town/city across America!

If we can take control locally we can start dismantling the government machinery which has allowed this Tyranny! It’s time to get off your a** and do some REAL WORK! The “Keyboard Warrior” is NOT going to cut it we need people knocking doors, organizing, and getting involved in every level of LOCAL/STATE POLITICS!!!

Keyboard warriors cannot win this fight! ONLY POLITICIANS CAN! So YOU or a trusted friend/patriot MUST replace every incumbent. PERIOD! Go create an account on Minds, GAB, MeWe, Xephula, and BrandNewTube. When you do that, on GAB you can create groups! Create a group for YOUR STATE! Once you populate that group pretty good, create groups for the bigger towns/cities of your state! In these groups you can lay out a battle plan, make friends and contacts etc……

If YOU don’t get involved WHO WILL???

The American People support Trump because Trump is the ONLY PERSON IN GOVERNMENT which actually REPRESENTS the American People!

It’s NOT rocket science folks! We have 535 swamp creatures in Congress. NONE OF THEM actually represent their constituents, they instead represent lobbyists and donors to their political campaigns!

The American People are now experiencing “Taxation without representation” just like our founding fathers did, just before they declared their independence! It is time for Americans to start down that path! We NEED LAWYERS to draw us up a NEW DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE!!!

Because we ARE living under Tyranny in the United States RIGHT NOW! We are taxed heavily without representation in Congress. That is just a FACT! It is time to DECLARE OUR INDEPENDENCE FROM A TYRANNICAL US GOVERNMENT!!!

So please, get active in your local politics! Start attending church even if it has not historically been “Your thing” because you MUST meet your neighbors and talk face to face with like-minded people! And move them to ORGANIZE!!!

ORGANIZE to WIPE THE FLOOR with every incumbent politician in your state! You need to pick a neighbor (or yourself) to represent your group!

Pick wisely………. A normal American who works and pays taxes and is a person of FAITH!!! And go to work TODAY beating the incumbent politicians in the next election! It’s all about the PRIMARY ELECTIONS! Because that is where the names that will be on the ballot will get chosen!!!


A few days ago Johns Hopkins published a study saying corona is nbd. They then deleted it. Read it here in its entirety. | Not the Bee

Can’t keep their LIES straight!!!

Comments Off on A few days ago Johns Hopkins published a study saying corona is nbd. They then deleted it. Read it here in its entirety. | Not the Bee Posted in Political Tagged , , , ,

The Constitution Can Crack Section 230 WSJ Opinion

Tech companies think the statute allows them to censor with impunity. The law is seldom so simple.

By Philip HamburgerJan. 29, 2021 2:00 pm ET

Section numbers of federal statutes rarely stir the soul, but one of them, 230, stirs up much fear, for it has seemed to justify censorship. Relying on it, tech companies including Google and Twitter increasingly pull the plug on disfavored posts, websites and even people. Online moderation can be valuable, but this censorship is different. It harms Americans’ livelihoods, muzzles them in the increasingly electronic public square, distorts political and cultural conversations, influences elections, and limits our freedom to sort out the truth for ourselves.

But does the 1996 Communications Decency Act really justify Big Tech censorship? The key language, Section 230(c)(2), provides: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of . . . any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.” The companies take this as a license to censor with impunity.

That understanding is questionable. Law is rarely as clear-cut as a binary switch. To be sure, courts emphasize the breadth of Section 230’s immunity for website operators. But there is little if any federal appellate precedent upholding censorship by the big tech companies. The question therefore comes down to the statute itself. The answers should give pause to the companies and courage to those they’ve censored.

The fundamental problems are constitutional—the first concerning the Commerce Clause. Congress’s authority to enact Section 230 may seem indisputable because the Supreme Court has, since the New Deal, adopted an almost open-ended view of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. Yet congressionally emboldened censorship poses unique questions.


Originally, the Constitution’s broadest protection for free expression lay in Congress’s limited power. James Wilson reassured Americans in 1787—four years before the First Amendment’s ratification—that “a power similar to that which has been granted for the regulation of commerce” was not “granted to regulate literary publications,” and thus “the proposed system possesses no influence whatever upon the press.”

The expansion of the commerce power to include regulation of speech is therefore worrisome. This is not to dispute whether communication and information are “commerce,” but rather to recognize the constitutional reality of lost freedom. The expansion of the commerce power endangers Americans’ liberty to speak and publish.

That doesn’t necessarily mean Section 230 is unconstitutional. But when a statute regulating speech rests on the power to regulate commerce, there are constitutional dangers, and ambiguities in the statute should be read narrowly.

A second constitutional question arises from the First Amendment. The companies brush this aside because they are private and the amendment prohibits only government censorship. Yet one must worry that the government has privatized censorship. If that sounds too dramatic, read Section 230(c)(2) again. It protects tech companies from liability for restricting various material “whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.” Congress makes explicit that it is immunizing companies from liability for speech restrictions that would be unconstitutional if lawmakers themselves imposed them.

Seventeenth-century censorship, which the First Amendment clearly prohibited, was also imposed largely through private entities, such as universities and the Stationers’ Company, England’s printers trade guild. Whereas privatized censorship then was often mandatory, the contemporary version is voluntary. But the tech companies are protected for restricting Congress’s list of disfavored materials, and this means that the government still sets the censorship agenda.

Some of the material that can be restricted under Section 230 is clearly protected speech. Consider its enumeration of “objectionable” material. The vagueness of this term would be enough to make the restriction unconstitutional if Congress directly imposed it. That doesn’t mean the companies are violating the First Amendment, but it does suggest that the government, in working through private companies, is abridging the freedom of speech.

This constitutional concern doesn’t extend to ordinary websites that moderate commentary and comments; such controls are their right not only under Section 230 but also probably under the First Amendment. Instead, the danger lies in the statutory protection for massive companies that are akin to common carriers and that function as public forums. The First Amendment protects Americans even in privately owned public forums, such as company towns, and the law ordinarily obliges common carriers to serve all customers on terms that are fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory. Here, however, it is the reverse. Being unable to impose the full breadth of Section 230’s censorship, Congress protects the companies so they can do it.

Some Southern sheriffs, long ago, used to assure Klansmen that they would face no repercussions for suppressing the speech of civil-rights marchers. Under the Constitution, government cannot immunize powerful private parties in the hope that they will voluntarily carry out unconstitutional policy.

Perhaps judges can avoid the constitutional problem, but this will be more difficult if they read Section 230(c)(2) broadly. The tech companies can’t have it both ways. If the statute is constitutional, it can’t be as broad as they claim, and if it is that broad, it can’t be constitutional.

The statute itself also poses problems for Big Tech. The first question is what Section 230(c) means when it protects tech companies from being “held liable” for restricting various sorts of speech. This is widely assumed to mean they can’t be sued. But the word “liable” has two meanings.

In a civil suit, a court must first consider whether the defendant has violated a legal duty or someone else’s right and is therefore legally responsible. If the answer is yes, the court must decide on a remedy, which can include damages, injunctive relief and so forth. The term “held liable” as used in Section 230(c) can fall into either category. Thus, the protection of tech companies from being “held liable” may merely mean they can’t be made to pay damages, not that they can’t be held responsible and subjected to other remedies. The former interpretation seems more plausible, if only because a mere ambiguity seems a weak basis for barring a vast class of plaintiffs from recourse to the courts on a matter as central as their speech.

After protecting tech companies from being held liable, the statute recites: “No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.” This clause, Section 230(e), may seem to vindicate the companies, but it distinguishes between a “cause of action” and “liability” and thereby clarifies the ambiguity. Evidently, when Section 230(c) protects tech companies from being held liable, it does not generally immunize them from causes of action. It merely protects them from “liability” in the sense of damages.

To be sure, when a company is sued for damages, Section 230(e) bars not only the imposition of such liability but also the underlying cause of action. But the statute apparently protects tech companies only from being sued for damages, not for other remedies.

Another question concerns the “material” that the companies can restrict without fear of being sued for damages. Section 230(c) protects them for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material” of various sorts. Even before getting to the enumerated categories of material, it is important to recognize that the statute refers only to “material.” It says nothing about restricting persons or websites.

To be sure, the statute protects the companies for “any action” restricting the relevant material, and if taken literally “any action” could include various nuclear options, such as barring persons and demonetizing or shutting down websites. But the term “any action” can’t be taken to include actions that restrict not only the pertinent material but also other things. ”Any action” has to be focused on such material.

The statute, moreover, requires that such action be taken “in good faith.” At common law, that can mean not acting with the effect of destroying or injuring the rights of others and, more specifically, not acting disproportionately to terminate relations. The statute thus doesn’t protect the companies when they take disproportionate action against material, let alone when they unnecessarily restrict other things, such as websites and persons.

What is in good faith for a website may be different from what is in good faith for a tech company that operates like a common carrier or public forum. But at least for such tech companies, the statute’s focus on “material”—combined with the requirement of “good faith”—stands in the way of any categorical protection for suppressing websites, let alone demonetizing them or barring persons.

What does this mean in practice? Even if a company technically can’t bar some material without taking down the entire website, it at least must give the operators an opportunity to remove the objectionable material before suppressing the website altogether. As for demonetizing sites or barring persons, such actions will rarely if ever be necessary for restricting material.

Such is the statute’s text. If you nonetheless want large common-carrier-like companies to go beyond “good faith” actions against “material,” pause to consider a little history, if only as a reality check about the proportionality of your desires. Even the Inquisition gave heretics formal opportunities to recant. And even the Star Chamber required its private censors to bar offensive material, not authors.

The next question is viewpoint discrimination. Section 230(c) specifies protection for restricting “material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” The companies understand this to include nearly anything to which they object.

But Section 230(c) enumerates only categories of content, not viewpoints. The distinction between content and viewpoint is crucial in free-speech law: Government can’t discriminate against disfavored viewpoints even when regulating unprotected speech such as “fighting words.” It is therefore telling that the list focuses on content. One may protest that “otherwise objectionable” could include objectionable viewpoints. But it is obviously a catchall, and following a list of types of content, it would seem to refer only to additional objectionable content.

The tech companies could argue that the catchall is still ambiguous. But at stake is viewpoint discrimination by vast companies that are akin to common carriers, whose operations function as public forums, and that are carrying out government speech policy. Are we really to believe that a mere ambiguity should be interpreted to mean something so extraordinary?

Section 230’s text offers the tech companies less shelter than they think. It protects them only from damage claims and not at all when they go beyond a constitutional reading of the statute.

The implications are far-reaching. As litigation comes before the courts, they will have to decide the limits of Section 230 and the lawfulness of privatized censorship. In the meantime, some state legislatures will probably adopt civil-rights statutes protecting freedom of speech from the tech companies. Recognizing that such legislation isn’t barred by Section 230, lawmakers in several states are already contemplating it. One way or another, Section 230 does not, and will not, bar remedies for government privatization of censorship.

Mr. Hamburger is a professor at Columbia Law School and president of the New Civil Liberties Alliance.

Source: WSJ Opinion

The founding principles of the United States are under attack along with your God-given, natural rights which are protected under the Constitution & outlined in the The Bill of Rights!

All of your natural rights hang in the balance. The 2020 election is a fine example of what I’m pointing out here. In the United States we have certain freedoms, rights, and protections which are outlined in the Constitution and specifically in the Bill of Rights. The problem we face now is that our Constitutional Republic has allowed the creation of a huge bureaucracy which essentially over-rides our checks and balances!

The EPA and ATF are good examples of this, the ATF recently unilaterally “outlawed” the Honey Badger Pistol even though the Pistol was 100% legal according to existing Constitutionally enacted legislation! You see the ATF cannot legally write laws according to the Constitution, but that is EXACTLY what they are doing here through an unelected “bureaucracy.” Normally, if you disagree with laws passed by legislators you can vote them out of office, but that remedy is not afforded to bureaucrats! This is what makes it wholly unconstitutional. More on the Honey Badger.

Then you have “corporations” who are afforded all the rights of citizens of the United States, even if they are not citizens! Government has essentially “Teamed up” with corporate entities to silence YOU and violate your constitutionally guaranteed rights! It is criminal! I highly suggest reading the following articles!

Mr. President, This Is The Solution To Big Tech Censorship

Big Tech Censorship is Promoting Extremism by Taking Parler Down, Banning Millions


Government has implemented a very deceptive, maniacal, and #Evil law designed to allow government, through voluntary cooperation with #Tech companies, to violate the First Amendment rights of Americans!

Although these Tech #Nazi scumbags ARE cooperating with government, they are not considered to “be government” which allows them to violate your rights!

Government is well aware of this and use these platforms to control the conversations of Americans while pretending that they are NOT using these companies to do their bidding!!!

It is time to STOP THIS!!!
These monopolies should have been broken up YEARS AGO!!!

But since our own government is complicit with the #Censorship we see on these platforms, they refuse to ACT against them!

It’s a symbiotic relationship formed in the depths of HELL and with the approval of #Lucifer himself! It is EVIL on a scale never before seen!