Missouri v Biden forces American Stasi into daylight

Biden’s DOJ claims “irreparable harm” to government when it can’t deceive the public

As mainstream media barely touches on the massive Missouri v Biden case, it’s all the more important for us to discuss it amongst ourselves, because what the Department of Justice is arguing is that the government has the right to control public opinion. Full stop. Most would agree that a government which claims the right to control public opinion has become despotic, but if that wasn’t already obvious enough, the DOJ’s Motion To Stay the July 4 Injunction comes right out and argues that the government’s primary aim is to deceive the public, and that exposing those lies amounts to “irreparable harm.” The government must never be called to account or embarrassed by individuals exposing their corruption.

Here’s the language used to make the claim: “The Government faces irreparable harm … [because the injunction will] prevent the Government from … speaking on matters of public concern and [prevent them from] working with social media companies …These immediate and ongoing harms to the Government outweigh any risk of injury to Plaintiffs if a stay is granted, and for the same reason, a stay is in the public interest.”

Given the basic facts of the First Amendment case laid out in the initial complaint, they’re arguing that it’s in the public interest for the government to lie to us while coercing social media companies to censor protected speech. And they’re further claiming they’ll be irreparably harmed if public opinion isn’t under their full control. The motion further argues that upholding the First Amendment is an “improper intrusion by a federal court into the workings of … government.” Cry me a river, the court is impeding their ability to run a totalitarian state.

Their maximalist view of their “right” to narrative control indicates they’re operating at a level of exceptionalism that is simply unheard of in democratic systems. When everything is an existential threat, anything goes. We came to expect this from Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld who developed the concept of the “unitary executive” which basically adopts Richard Nixon’s famous view that “Well, when the President does it ... that means it’s not illegal.” As if all the rot from the Bush Jr has spread to every corner of government like a metastasized cancer, DOJ now claims that unitary executive applies to everything.

This shows that the US is operating under the doctrine of dual state in which liberal democracy has been overcome by an unaccountable “prerogative” government—an American Stasi.

In his denial of an earlier Motion To Dismiss, Judge Doughty cited the relentless pressure campaign of federal government officials to suppress social media shows that the Biden administration’s political agenda cannot be reconciled with the First Amendment. And that federal officials such as White House digital director Robert Flaherty “convert[ed] the otherwise private conduct of censorship on social media platforms into state action.”

It’s understandable that lay people might not immediately appreciate how expressly unconstitutional this is. But lawyers, reporters, publishers, and editors have no such excuse. I asked three different attorneys, one who studied First Amendment law specifically, and they all said “Everyone knows it’s unconstitutional to coerce a private entity to violate the Bill of Rights on behalf of state actors—especially the White House.” They all said “it’s axiomatic.” When I asked if this principle had a name, I was told that it didn’t need a name because it’s so basic.

Later I found the name of that principle in Democratic Presidential Candidate Robert F. Kennedy’s lawsuit filed earlier this year in Louisiana. The beautifully constructed Kennedy v Biden complaint begins by citing The Norwood Principle, which is the name I was looking for.

Here’s the language as it appears in the complaint:

1. A half century ago, in Norwood v. Harrison, the Supreme Court reaffirmed what the Justices called an “axiomatic” principle of constitutional law.

2. The Court set forth this principle categorically, without qualification or dissent.

3. The principle was this: government “may not induce, encourage, or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”

4. The Norwood principle is “axiomatic” because, without it, government actors could evade nearly every prohibition in the Bill of Rights through the simple expedient of inducing private parties to do what the Constitution bars the government from doing directly.

That’s unambiguous. In their Motion to Stay, the DOJ might as well have invoked the Divine Right of Kings—that’s how un-American and unconstitutional this is.

DOJ also argues that the injunction “lacks specificity” as if no one in the Biden Administration has ever heard of the First Amendment. In the 247 years since the founding of the United States, this is the first time the government has claimed that the First Amendment is too difficult to understand.

The problem is that the government has made an enormous power grab and they’re not giving it up willfully. Here’s a short list of disinformation shops that currently work with the government to censor protected speech and propagandize the public with disinformation. Many were originally created to fight terrorism, but Biden’s Administration has converted them to use against Americans.

Start here:

• Global Engagement Center (funded by the State Department)

• Cyber Security & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA, housed at Dept of Homeland Security)

• Center for Internet Security (CIS, Dept of Homeland Security funded)

• Stanford Internet Observatory

• Virality Project (housed at Stanford)

• Election Integrity Partnership

• Newsguard

• Hamilton 68

• New Knowledge

• Graphika

• New America

• Clemson’s Media Forensics Lab

• Atlantic Council’s DFRLab

Disinformation organizations have no transparency or accountability. They operate for the state, but outside of the state, on the behest of the state. This entire project can be well understood under the doctrine of “dual state” wherein the visible side is liberal democracy, but there is also an “exceptional” side— sometimes called “prerogative” state which is composed of intelligence agencies, military, organized crime, and all other non-transparent actors that undermine the democratic institutions they’re supposed to work for. Some have described prerogative state as a fusion of authoritarianism and liberal democracy, but I see it more like aufheben wherein this fusion creates something new that is neither liberal democracy nor prerogative. Aufheben is like when you have a cucumber, but want a pickle, so you change the cucumber into a pickle. It’s no longer a cucumber. You could say we’re in a pickle when the prerogative state takes the wheel from liberal democratic institutions.

In the case of Missouri v Biden, the prerogative state is the part of government censoring information, pushing lies and propaganda, and curtailing free speech. Prerogative state in the US has taken full control of media, and is responsible for all the lies and upheaval we’ve experienced since 2016: Russiagate, COVID-19, January 6, Hunter Biden’s role in his family’s corruption per the evidence on his laptop that was hidden by intelligence agencies who ran an operation to discredit it during the Presidential election so that his father Joe Biden would be elected. These sorts of follies used to be rare. Now they consume our every waking moment.

And so it’s truly remarkable to see dual state dirty laundry aired out publicly. It’s almost never forced to argue for its “exceptionalism” out into the open. This is usually done in closed Congressional hearings, Presidential briefings, on private jets, and at Georgetown cocktail parties. In Missouri v Biden the prerogative state argues that it should be exempt from democracy. It’s as simple as that. This is why mainstream media reporting on it so obtuse.

A fuller understanding of the mechanics of this struggle would reveal America’s Dirtiest Secret: that a coup happened a long time ago and actual political power in the US isn’t democratic at all and most certainly doesn’t reflect the wishes of citizens. Power instead rests with corporations (like pharmaceutical companies) that are enhanced by emergency measures designed for THEIR benefit, not ours. The Censorship Industrial Complex (or American Stasi) exists to protect the prerogative state’s ability to change the rules of the game by declaring an emergency. In so doing they aim to define any discussion of the prerogative state as “conspiracy theory,” a term made up by our intelligence agencies to curtail discussion of the assassination of JFK by the cowardly prerogative state.

Their real existential fear is that Americans will eventually learn the dangerous truth that we’re no longer in a democracy, which is why we’re lied to constantly. A fitting example of this in action is Biden reneging on the release of JFK Assassination Records. This extraordinary move was announced after 5pm on Friday before the July 4 holiday weekend. As a Senator, Joe Biden had signed the JFK Assassination Records Act. Now he’s “ruled” that the documents can’t be released because the prerogative state that murdered JFK is still in operation, at the same time Biden’s DOJ is arguing “irreparable harm” to the government when it can no longer deceive the public.

“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way 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.”—Harry Truman