Saturday, September 30, 2023
Miles from the Mainstream
D. R. ZUKERMAN, proprietor
Posting a Few Passages From
Missouri v. Biden:
A July 4th Reaffirmation of
the Spirit of American Liberty

July 19, 2023 --


This very important opinion, issued on July 4, 2023 by U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty (W.D., La.) should be a working guide for all members of Congress who honor their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. It should also be cited as warning to the American people that there are totalitarian forces across the homeland that would silence freedom of expression by their false battle cry: "Disinformation." We first heard this false cry when the radical left promoted a lie to force President Trump out of office, 2017-2018. Since then, these anti-democracy forces have become more brazen, shouting "disinformation" at the expression of ideas not to their liking. This opinion by Judge Doughty rebukes the lies of the radical left with unvarnished truth. The immediate impact of Judge Doughty's ruling is to prevent the Biden White House and various federal departments and agencies, including the State Department and CDC from suppressing the free flow of information.

LPR begins its examination of Missouri v. Biden by posting the passage setting forth the involvement of the FBI in the campaign to suppress the scandal of the Hunter Biden laptop story. country.

"According to the Plaintiffs’ allegations detailed above, the FBI had a 50% success rate regarding social media’s suppression of alleged misinformation, and it did no investigation to determine whether the alleged disinformation was foreign or by U.S. citizens. The FBI’s failure to alert social-media companies that the Hunter Biden laptop story was real, and not mere Russian disinformation, is particularly troubling. The FBI had the laptop in their possession since December 2019 and had warned social-media companies to look out for a “hack and dump” operation by the Russians prior to the 2020 election. Even after Facebook specifically asked whether the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation, Dehmlow of the FBI refused to comment, resulting in the social-media companies’ suppression of the story. As a result, millions of U.S. citizens did not hear the story prior to the November 3, 2020 election. Additionally, the FBI was included in Industry meetings and bilateral meetings, received and forwarded alleged misinformation to social-media companies, and actually mislead social-media companies in regard to the Hunter Biden laptop story. The Court finds this evidence demonstrative of significant encouragement by the FBI Defendants."

LPR here calls visitors' attention to the second sentence above: "The FBI's failure to alert social-media companies that the Hunter Biden laptop story was real, and not mere disinformation, is particularly troubling." The passage then indicates that for nearly a year before the laptop story was suppressed, the FBI had custody of the computer. The obvious conclusion: the country's premier law enforcement agency was an active participant in the Hunter Biden laptop cover-up. A re-elected President Trump must clean the FBI house.

This passage from p. 94 of the ruling by Judge Doughty informs the American people of the real threat to American liberty: "What is really telling is that virtually all of the free speech suppressed was “conservative” free speech. Using the 2016 election and the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government apparently engaged in a massive effort to suppress disfavored conservative speech. The targeting of conservative speech indicates that Defendants may have engaged in “viewpoint discrimination,” to which strict scrutiny applies. See Simon & Schuster, Inc., 505 U.S. 105 (1991)."

Note this judicial finding: "[T]he Government apparently engaged in a massive effort to suppress disfavored conservative speech." LPR submits that the only conclusion to be drawn is that the Biden administration is controlled by a despotic clique.

The following passage, at p. 143, points out that the defendants resorted to coercion to force social media platforms into censoring conservative viewpoints. A list of the threats employed by defendants appears on pp 97 - 99 of Judge Doughty's opinion.

"The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in their claims that there is a substantial risk that harm will occur, that is not imaginary or speculative. Plaintiffs have shown that not only have the Defendants shown willingness to coerce and/or to give significant encouragement to social-media platforms to suppress free speech with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic and national elections, they have also shown a willingness to do it with regard to other issues, such as gas prices,690 parody speech,691 calling the President a liar,692 climate change,693 gender,694 and abortion.695 On June 14, 2022, White House National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy, at an Axios event entitled, “A Conversation on Battling Disinformation,” was quoted as saying, “We have to get together; we have to get better at communicating, and frankly, the tech companies have to stop allowing specific individuals over and over to spread disinformation.”696

The passage above makes it clear that the defendants used the label "Disinformation" to silence alternative viewpoints -- mainly conservative views.

Here now is Judge Doughty' Conclusion, set forth at pp. 153 - 155 of his opinion.

"The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition. Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed. It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature. This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech. American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country. Although this case is still relatively young, and at this stage the Court is only examining it in terms of Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, the evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth.”721 The Plaintiffs have presented substantial evidence in support of their claims that they were the victims of a far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign. This court finds that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment free speech claim against the Defendants. Therefore, a preliminary injunction should issue immediately against the Defendants...."

Judge Doughty's conclusion, which compared the current Government to Big Brother in Orwell's "1984" was preceded by this observation from President Truman:

"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one place to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear."

Let it be said that the media's support for the despotic clique in our country's capital is, sadly, to be expected; the silence, however, of Mitch McConnell and Ronna McDaniel is...deafening.