Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 9, 2021 - Sebastian Gorka

02:51:33

Jenna Ellis FULL SHOW: President Trump fights back against Big Tech

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Welcome, welcome to America First with Dr. Sebastian Gorka.
	That's my best impression of Seb.
	I think I was talking to the producers earlier and said apparently there have been a lot of guest hosts that have tried to impersonate the great Seb Gorka.
	I think we should have a contest.
	That would be amazing and let him pick who can be the best impersonator of the great Dr. Sebastian Gorka.
	But I'm Jenna Ellis.
	I am filling in today for the wonderful good friend of mine that is Seb.
	And here on America First, we have so much to talk about today.
	Thank you so much for joining me on this Friday.
	The big news, of course, is coming out of Bedminster.
	New Jersey, President Trump, who filed and is filing lawsuits against big tech.
	And this is something that I agree with my friend, Alan Dershowitz, is going to be the most important case in the 21st century.
	And there have been so many people, of course, on the Democrat side and even some of these so-called rhino conservatives.
	That are trying to minimize that and just push back against everything and try to just say, well, this is President Trump stuff.
	So, of course, it's poorly written.
	Of course, it's not going to survive.
	Of course, it's going to be ridiculous.
	But we need to get to the merits of this claim.
	We need to talk about why this is going to be an important lawsuit.
	And if you didn't read it yet, you should.
	We'll be talking also about this op-ed.
	If you're watching on Rumble or on video, you can see me holding this up.
	This is the Wall Street Journal op-ed from President Donald J. Trump, Why I'm Suing Big Tech.
	And if you have not seen my show, I am at Jenna Ellis ESQ, and I also host a show on Real America's Voice.
	Go to americasvoice.news.
	We are on Roku, Pluto TV, all across the digital platforms.
	I host a show called Just the Truth every weeknight at 6 p.m.
	Eastern Time, And I had my good friend Dan Kapolis, who is one of the most prolific civil litigators, on for the entire hour on Wednesday.
	And we were talking and going, doing a deep dive into this lawsuit.
	He read the whole thing, and we spent the whole hour.
	Definitely go back and watch that, but watch just the truth on Real America's Voice.
	Follow me at Jenna Ellis ESQ.
	And I am always on America First every Wednesday with Sebastian Gorka.
	So we're going to have fun this three hours.
	We're going to be talking about big tech and a few other things that really concern you as America First patriots.
	And that's what we love to do on this show, what I know that Sebastian loves to do.
	So let's get right to it with my first guest, who is Hermit Dillon.
	She is a good friend of mine.
	We have worked together on a lot of lawsuits with the church issues in the midst of all of this COVID shutdown.
	She is the founder of Dillon Law and also the president of the Center for American Liberty.
	And we're going to talk about some of these civil rights lawsuits.
	So, Harmeet, are you with me?
	Yes, I am.
	Happy to be here today, Jenna.
	Yeah, happy Friday!
	Thanks so much.
	So first, you know, before we get into kind of, you know, the merits of the Donald Trump lawsuit, you have, through the First Liberty Center, filed a civil rights lawsuit against the former California Secretary of State, turned U.S.
	Senator Alex Padilla, for Banning attorney Rogan O'Hanley.
	So, you know, there are so many people, Harmeet, in this world that are fighting against big tech censorship.
	You're doing that now on behalf of Rogan.
	So why is this so important and why are you confident that this is going to be successful?
	Well, thanks for asking.
	I 100% agree with Alan Dershowitz that this issue is a seminal issue and a critical watershed issue in First Amendment.
	Law in the United States.
	This is not the first time that I have filed a lawsuit like this.
	I have been the lawyer in a lawsuit against Twitter for deplatforming a prominent Canadian feminist who was critical of a transgender troll.
	And for using the wrong pronoun, according to the woke mob, she was removed from Twitter permanently, even though that wasn't a violation of Twitter's rules.
	That case is Murphy versus Twitter.
	So, you know, we lost that case, and we lost that case because the court held in California, at the Court of Appeals, that the Communications Decency Act, Section 230, is virtually a get-out-of-free, get-out-of-jail-free card for any contract claim, any tort claim, and any deplatforming claim that a citizen might bring.
	So, lawyers like I and other lawyers who are in this space have tried to You know, think about how you could, uh, you know, sort of bring a different kind of claim.
	And, you know, the kind of claim that we brought for a lawyer, Rogan O'Hanley is very different than a communications decency act, section two 30 issue.
	And so is, uh, are the president's three lawsuits.
	So in O'Hanley versus Twitter, our client is well known in social media as I think about had about 3 million followers and different platforms until this Twitter incident happened called DC Drano.
	And Rogan, after the election of November 2020, called for audits in various states where there were unexplained discrepancies in the results.
	And he had never had any strikes or any problems with Twitter before.
	And he was ultimately deplatformed after posting a photograph of the capital of Barb Dryer around it, saying something to the effect of highest number of votes ever.
	In other words, mocking Just mocking the Democrat narrative, but not in an untruthful way.
	That is considered opinion under the First Amendment.
	Right.
	So, stepping back, so what happened?
	The state of California used $35 million of taxpayer money, unallocated by the legislature, to quote-unquote improve election integrity and election security, and really just do messaging around that.
	They did a closed bid contract to liberal vendors.
	They picked a vendor, SKD Knickerbocker, which is a pipeline to the Biden White House, by the way, also a consultant to the Biden administration.
	And this company hired by our secretary of state, Alex Padilla, spent $35 million supposedly to inform the public how to vote correctly before the election.
	What they were really doing, as we have found out from public records act responses in this case, is they were drawing up a list for California secretary of state of offensive social media posts that were critical of his and other liberal Democrats' runnings of elections in different states, and asking Twitter and other social media companies through back channels that had been established for this purpose of this project to take those posts down.
	And so every day, S. K. D. Knickerbocker would produce lists of spreadsheets of posts they didn't like, Uh, and by the way, this was in conjunction with the National Association of Secretaries of State to a DC organization of national secretaries of state, which I never heard of before this lawsuit, but they were also coordinating this in other states.
	So as a result of this coordination between the state.
	And private companies.
	So that's a critical part of our lawsuit and that lawsuit.
	Yeah, and President Trump's lawsuit.
	I mean, because he doesn't use the word collusion, but it is coordination, and he actually talks about that in his op-ed.
	But this, this then is, that's really the mechanism that then brings all of this under the banner of the First Amendment, right?
	Because essentially, I mean, are you arguing as well that, that now with this coordination, that big tech has essentially become a state actor?
	Yes, so we specifically allege in our lawsuit that there's a violation of the First Amendment under Section 1985 of the Civil Rights Act.
	So Section 1985 is a Klan Act era law that prevents private companies from colluding with government entities to deprive citizens of their civil rights, whatever they may be.
	And so this is a, you know, venerable law.
	It's an important law.
	And we are using that law to show that when the government colludes with a, uses a private actor as its agent, basically, that's a violation of the First Amendment.
	And so our theory ties specifically to our client.
	I think President Trump's lawsuits have somewhat the same theory there.
	They do.
	And I want to take a break here, and we're going to talk more with Hermit Dillon.
	You're getting a lot of legal analysis today, and we are going to be talking much, much more about censorship, about big tech, and all of that when we come right back here on America First with Dr. Sebastian Gorka.
	I'm not Sebastian Gorka, but I'm filling in for him today.
	I'm Jenna Ellis.
	We'll be right back here on America First. .
	The End
	��
	��
	��
	��
	��
	�� Transcription
	by CastingWords Transcription by CastingWords
	This is America First with Sebastian Gorka,
	Now back to our guest host, Jenna Ellis.
	Welcome, welcome back to America First with Jenna Ellis today.
	So you can follow me at Jenna Ellis ESQ across all of the social media platforms because guess what?
	I have not been canceled yet.
	So follow me while you can at Jenna Ellis ESQ, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Gab, Parler.
	Going to be on Getter.
	I have not yet joined that platform, but that will be interesting.
	So we're talking, of course, today about the big tech lawsuits and pushing back against this whole censorship narrative.
	And my special guest is Harmeet Dillon, who's been talking about her lawsuit with the First Liberty Center and our Center for American Liberty.
	Sorry, our friends at First Liberty are also great, but she is the Center for American Liberty.
	And you can follow her at P-N-J-A-B-A-N on Twitter.
	And Harmeet, before the break, we were talking about the importance of these lawsuits and why this deep dive and this understanding of the law and the arguments, these really creative arguments that you and President Trump and others are now bringing.
	And I think it's so simplistic when people go on Twitter and they see, you know, the hot take from Instagram.
	Yes, so I think that's really critical is that, look, there are a lot of theories out there.
	well, this doesn't have merit because big tech isn't government, so they're not a state actor.
	And they really need to understand more in depth the legal strategy behind this.
	So you were explaining that and then also the class action nature of this.
	Yes.
	So I think that's really critical is that, look, there are a lot of theories out there.
	We have seen, for example, Traeger University brought a lawsuit a couple of years back saying that, you know, YouTube was effectively the public square under a Supreme Court case called Pruneyard.
	And the court did not agree with that.
	And so that's an argument that a lot of people have made.
	And even there's legislation pending from Republicans to try to or has been legislation pending to try to say that these companies should be regulated as public utilities.
	And maybe they should be.
	I'm not making that argument at all in our lawsuit or otherwise.
	What I'm saying is that under existing law, where the government that is trying to get you, whether it be through a First Amendment, Fourth Amendment means, Fifth Amendment means, First Amendment means, Second Amendment means, tries to get around a state action bar by using a private company crony, henchman, or agent, that's also illegal and unconstitutional.
	Because that happened in the South.
	That happened Um, you know, during the civil rights, uh, struggles in our country.
	And this is a civil rights struggle.
	Um, so the government can't censor you and the government can't sort of, you know, pay middlemen to censor you either.
	And that's what happened in our case.
	And that's what president Trump is arguing has happened in his case.
	And, you know, part of what's referred to by evidence in the Trump lawsuits is communications that we don't have communications that are blacked out between Fauci and Zuckerberg and, You know, how could we help?
	Roy Zuckerberg and his ilk really, quote-unquote, helped out a lot in our elections through nonprofit contributions, and they appear to have helped out by, quote-unquote, shaping the narrative about those elections, not to mention other things like vaccination pushes and things like that.
	So we don't know a lot here in some of these instances, but what my lawsuit is based on is public records act requests that Judicial Watch did and You know, we're going to be expanding on those in the discovery process, and I'm sure the Trump lawsuits are sort of, you know, in the same vein.
	Yeah.
	We've only seen the tip of the iceberg, and these people are using our employees.
	And that's where, yeah, and that's exactly where we have to get to the place.
	I think discovery is going to be very critical in these cases.
	So how confident are you that you can get to that phase and survive, at least in your case with Rogan O'Hanley, survive Yeah, so our case is interesting.
	It involves a mix of different actors.
	President Trump's lawsuit in the venue.
	The form selection is interesting in that case.
	I'm anticipating potentially that, you know, big tech is going to try to remove that to California to a more friendly venue.
	So some of these more procedural issues up front, what are what what is your perspective on the confidence of getting your case to the discovery phase?
	Yeah, so our case is interesting.
	It involves a mix of different actors.
	It involves two private companies, Twitter, SKD Nickelbrookker involves a so called nonprofit National Association of And then importantly, it involves both public figures acting in their public capacity, the Secretary of State of California and the former Secretary of State is now acting in his private capacity, as well as specific employees who did the censoring request.
	So, you know, with all of those public employees, they have certain defenses that the private companies don't have.
	They're going to I'm sure going to make defenses about qualified immunity and other government immunities from suit.
	So that's going to be interesting.
	The private entities are virtually certain to make motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
	They're going to say, we're not agents of the government.
	We are simply doing our own thing.
	So that round of motions from the various defendants, I'm sure they're all going to make some sort of a motion, is likely to take a few months.
	You know, we're still in the process of serving the government entities.
	We've served some of the others.
	So I think you can anticipate a similar life cycle, if you will, in these other cases.
	But, you know, for a company to sue you and claim its terms of service bind you on a particular venue, you know, that's not infinite.
	And so nobody here is suing under Twitter's terms of service for breach of contract.
	That's not what anybody is doing here or there.
	You know, it's something different altogether.
	Um, you know, so it's a different theory.
	And so I seriously question whether they can say, oh, you know, my, my terms of service, uh, demand that you litigate against me and, you know, Timbuktu or Mars, and we're required to do that.
	So, so I think that's going to be, that's going to be interesting.
	Also, I will add that, uh, the president's cases are styled as class action.
	So which mine is not, mine is for a specific defendant.
	So in a class action, There is a whole other set of motions that are brought challenging whether a case may be certified as a class action on the basis of whether all of the plaintiffs have claims that are common, typical, whether the administration of justice is going to be advanced by doing these cases together as opposed to separately.
	So that's going to definitely be something that's heavily litigated, potentially for over a year, I suspect, based on my experience in class action.
	That part could take quite a bit to litigate.
	And it may be that, you know, and I, of course, full disclaimer, you know, was counsel to the president.
	I'm not involved as an attorney in any way in the president's lawsuit here, other than just as a citizen supporting this type of litigation.
	I think that litigation does advance the law in ways that legislation can.
	But using the tool of civil litigation to advance the law and move the law forward and have that clarification of what what the government can and can't do under the Constitution with these types of civil rights issues.
	That's really important.
	But I think, you know, possibly, Harmie, that the reason that this was filed as a class action, potentially just to have The length and the duration is potentially one of those strategic moves by President Trump's lawyers to get this to survive continually.
	So we're going to be right back in here on America First with Jenna Ellis today and we're going to talk in another segment with Hermit Dillon because we're getting some great legal analysis from her.
	She is an amazing civil litigator and definitely follow her.
	on Twitter at P-N-J-A-B-A-N or just search for Harmeet Dhillon and she is the president of the Center for American Liberty.
	You can follow that at Liberty underscore Center.
	Of course, follow me as well across all of social media at Jenna Ellis ESQ.
	It's so important to have access to the public square like we do.
	That's why we put out our Twitter handles, right?
	So we're going to do some a little bit more of this deep dive analysis on these issues when we come right back right here on America First.
	Music by
	Ben Thede Music by Ben
	Thede Music
	by Ben Thede
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Constitution, America first!
	Welcome back to America First with Jenna Ellis today filling in for Dr. Sebastian Gorka, and we are breaking down all of the ins and outs of these big tech lawsuits that are so incredibly important.
	I agree with my friend Alan Dershowitz, which just shows Democrats and Republicans can agree on stuff when we are talking about civil rights issues, when we're talking about the protections that the U.S.
	Constitution is supposed to provide for our liberties and freedoms, and Helping me break this down this hour is my friend Hermit Dillon.
	She is the founder of Dillon Law and also the Center for American Liberty.
	So follow her on Twitter, on social media, before we all get banned until she wins her lawsuit at p-n-j-a-b-a-n on Twitter or just Search for her name, Harmeet Dillon.
	And Harmeet, we're breaking these down.
	And you were talking before the break about this class action and the nature of that.
	And let's talk specifically, though, about your lawsuit for Rogan O'Handley and the specific evidence that you have to move this forward and why you're confident that this is going to survive some of these more procedural issues and the motions to dismiss.
	And I think kind of the big picture of what people who are so concerned about big tech censorship, they know that this is unfair.
	We have a fundamental fairness understanding as Americans that we shouldn't be censored from these platforms.
	We should have access to public forums that are important not only for our message, for speech that we want to put out there, but even for speech we disagree with.
	And so, in your specific case, you were mentioning that, you know, there is specific evidence here that you want to have heard on the merits.
	Yeah, so I think, you know, people on the sort of conservative side have a lot of different theories here.
	You know, my theories have evolved on these issues over the years, and I'm not sure I've reached the end of that evolution, but I think what I can say is, number one, on Communications Decency Act, Section 230, I don't think that the framers of it, you know, back in 1996, during the Gingrich Congress, you know, compromise there, meant to preclude private contracts from being enforced, like terms of service, or preclude
	Normal consumer protection statutes like false advertising, all of which have been struck down by CDA 230.
	So I think that, you know, I'd like to see a normal application of that law that's used to its original intent and its words.
	But look, I think what these people are trying to say, really, the big tech companies and the sneering, you know, baboons in the media on these issues who are mocking these lawsuits They're trying to say that, you know, this sort of throwaway statute that was meant to give immunity in a specific narrow thing basically trumps the Constitution.
	It means that companies can do whatever they want.
	And that is, of course, ridiculous.
	The Constitution is a super norm.
	I would argue that the First Amendment, which I've been loving and fighting under since I was in college in court, is a central statute.
	And it is paramount.
	importance that literally our country was formed on the concept that the government can't tell you what to do, can't tell you how to worship, can't censor your speech, can't censor your, can't censor the press, and really must give freedom to its citizens in this regard.
	And I appreciate, Harmeet, I really appreciate that you also said that, you know, your thinking has sort of, you know, evolved in this.
	And I think how, you know, because conservatives generally would like to say that, you know, oh, well, you know, we're all for the free marketplace.
	And because big tech are private companies, and the government should never be involved in that.
	And, you know, and I think that that it's fair to say how they're interacting, especially with this theory of being state actors, and how this is affecting.
	affecting speech and these protected rights, being able to evolve that thinking and say, okay, what should the landscape look like?
	That's what good lawyers do.
	That's what good conservatives do.
	If we're conserving our rule of law, our U.S.
	Constitution, we should be considering these things and not just falling back to maybe, you know, an analysis that doesn't quite work for the context that we're in right now.
	Yeah, I think that's right.
	I think there are a lot of armchair lawyers and, frankly, Twitter lawyers who are real lawyers and not real lawyers who have deep thoughts on these issues, and they're not quite tested in the courtroom like mine and like some other lawyers have been.
	I had a very good conversation last night at dinner with Senator Rand Paul, who is a lover of liberty, I think has been very critical of big tech and all of that, but he's also critical of government overreach and doesn't want to see the government be put in the place of being the police, the speech police, like having too much regulation.
	So, you know, I had a thoughtful conversation with Andy.
	We didn't agree on some of these issues, but I think I came away with some new things to think about.
	So I think that's where I am, is that we really have to always keep an open mind, but also constantly be fighting.
	A hundred percent.
	And Hermie, that's such a great place to end our portion of the interview.
	I really appreciate you coming on to talk about all of this.
	And we wish you the best, of course, with the lawsuit.
	I'll have to have you on Just the Truth to talk more about this and, you know, the next steps as we go forward.
	So I am Jenna Ellis.
	Filling in for Dr. Sebastian Gorka right here on America First.
	Follow me right now across social media before I get censored at JennaEllisESQ and stick with us.
	We'll have another great guest coming right up.
	We'll have another great guest.
	We'll have another great guest.
	We'll have another great guest.
	We'll have another great guest.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	America First Can you believe it?
	They are saying that they don't agree with America First.
	How do you say that?
	Magnificent.
	We are dancing in here.
	I always love the bumper music to America First.
	I am Jenna Ellis, and for the rest of this hour, I have my good friend Grant Stinchfield, who is, of course, the host of the wonderful 8 p.m.
	Eastern Time, Stinchfield on Newsmax, where I am a contributor, so you will see us talking a lot on Newsmax.
	And he is also the host of a morning radio show out of L.A., AM70, The Answer.
	For those of us on the East Coast, we can still sleep in and listen to it.
	That's great.
	So Grant, thanks so much for joining me today on America First.
	Kenna, how cool is this?
	Usually I'm asking you the questions.
	I know.
	This is so fun.
	Turnabout is fair play here in the media world.
	This is so fun.
	Grant, you and I actually got to spend a lot of time in person together in Dallas with your amazing fiancée, Amy.
	She's so fantastic in Dallas.
	We went to dinner and we're talking about our mutual love and respect for the 45 and the President.
	You know, I just I want to get your take here on big tech.
	And I love that President Trump is still fighting these fights.
	I mean, he could have easily just said, you know what, peace out America, I'm going to go and retire and let somebody else pick up the mantle.
	He is still always 100% in the fight for America First policies, not only in the policy realm, but now also in litigation.
	And that's so important for the future of America.
	Well, you know, you and I have talked, obviously, and I truly believe that Republicans in general need to take a page out of what President Trump is doing.
	And really what the Democrats are doing.
	I call it lawfare, and that's waging war in the courtrooms across America.
	It's the only way we're going to beat them back right now while they control Washington.
	So we've got to take the fight to the courtrooms.
	It's an uphill battle because, as you know, the Democrats have weaponized so many of these courts.
	But if you do the right thing and you pick where to file these cases and you pick them selectively where you have a good chance of winning, And when I mean that, the better chance of getting a judge who may be favorable to you or even a jury who may be favorable to you.
	Or just fair.
	Yeah, I mean, you know, just fair.
	And I think what was so frustrating for me, part of Team Trump in the post-election, just, you know, ridiculous nonsense from the courts to say, you know, you don't have standing as a candidate In a presidential election to say that somehow you don't have standing and you aren't injured by cheating and all of this, you know, the administration of these elections and to say, no, we're going to kick this out.
	We don't want to hear it.
	And then the Supreme Court in the Texas versus Pennsylvania lawsuit to say, you know, no, when we clearly have original jurisdiction, which means under Article 3 of the U.S.
	Constitution, there is no choice but for the Supreme Court to hear the case, regardless of how they ultimately opine and rule on it, they at least have to hear when a state sues another state.
	And so what's been frustrating, Grant, to so many conservatives who just understand this principle of justice, of fairness, is that the judicial branch seems to be in a lot of these areas really hesitant to wade into hot-button issues when they shouldn't.
	It shouldn't matter what the political realm is saying.
	It should matter what their obligation as impartial jurists is to protect the rights of the American people.
	Well, unfortunately, that starts from the very top, which is the Supreme Court.
	The Supreme Court has been very hesitant to take up all important cases.
	Only recently is it now taking up some of these gun cases.
	But, you know, the Supreme Court not wanting to hear the President's case about a fraudulent election.
	that had Democrats breaking the Constitution, doing things they shouldn't have done in so many different states.
	And so I think lower courts are also taking their cues.
	So this whole idea of no standing, Jen, and really, I get this from my many conversations with you and Mayor Giuliani and Joe DiGenova and the whole crew, is that this was their cop-out.
	It was their way that they were just not taking it up because they didn't want to take it up.
	So we'll just claim the president doesn't have any standing here.
	We can wipe our hands clean and we won't be held accountable for the decision that we would have ultimately had to make, which would have been in the president's favor.
	They just didn't want that on their shoulders.
	So they came up with this no standing scheme, just like Democrats had their mail-in ballot scheme.
	Yeah, and my response to them would be, you know what?
	If you don't want this responsibility, then get off the bench.
	Because guess what?
	You signed up for this when you took that oath of office to support the U.S.
	Constitution to be a fair and impartial jurist.
	Then, you know, whatever the political banter is, whatever the threats are, I mean, and I experienced that.
	I mean, I'm saying this from experience, you know, having the death threats, having the insane media come after me every which way possible, lie about everything, you know, and try to dig up stuff from your past and it's like, you know, what are you people even doing?
	This is something where at some point you have to be like the founding fathers who were willing to stand firm and say, we are going to do the right thing because it's the right thing regardless of how unpopular or what anyone is saying about us.
	You have to stand up and do the right thing.
	And Grant, where is that notion of patriotism?
	It seems like the left is trying to smear that notion of patriotism as somehow Well, you know, what we're facing right now is a two-tier justice system, and it isn't fair to everyone involved.
	defend this country, you're equating it with all of these negative terms rather than saying, at the end of the day, we're all Americans.
	Well, you know, what we're facing right now is a two-tier justice system, and it isn't fair to everyone involved.
	Tonight on the Newsmax show, Jenna, I'm actually taking a page from David Horowitz over at The Blaze who called into question two cases, There's a woman out of Memphis who's accused of murdering a man, shooting at him on his front step, and she also hit his aunt.
	She walks, and at the time of the shooting, she was facing an attempted murder charge or a road rage incident.
	She is out on bail for $15,000.
	You've got an insurrectionist, so-called, right?
	What they call them.
	A gentleman by the name of Mr. Hale, who is a Navy reservist.
	He's got some checkered history as far as racism goes, but never made any threats to anyone.
	His only crime was being at the Capitol.
	He didn't injure anybody.
	He didn't engage in any violence.
	How dare you be at a public building?
	How dare you?
	And the courts are holding him indefinitely with no bail.
	So you say you have a fraudulent election.
	You get thrown in prison.
	You try to murder somebody.
	You're out walking the streets.
	Yeah, which just shows also that the right to reasonable bail, by the way, is a specifically constitutionally protected right in our Bill of Rights.
	And the reason the founders gave that and specifically textually enumerated that is because governments are most often likely to infringe against that protected right, our freedom and our liberty.
	We're going to be right back here on America First.
	I'm Jenna Ellis talking with my good friend Grant Stinchfield.
	Follow him right now at Stinchfield 1776 and me at Jenna Ellis ESQ.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	The End
	Welcome back to America First with Jenna Ellis.
	I am filling in for the great Dr. Sebastian Gorka.
	That's my best impression of him.
	And I am joined by my good friend Grant Stinchfield.
	Follow him now at Stinchfield 1776.
	He is very, very close to 100,000 followers.
	Let's see if we can break that for him today.
	And stick around in the second hour.
	We're talking all about big tech, censorship, how conservatives need to view this issue.
	And I'm going to have Brooke Rawlins as my guest for the next hour.
	And also our friend John Bachman will be with us in the third hour, who's also on Newsmax.
	So Grant, you know, we're talking about all of these issues, and it seems like the big tech censorship is just such a huge issue for Americans.
	And you know, you're on social media.
	We've just, you know, put out your handle all this.
	You have the show on Newsmax.
	And what I can't understand is why some conservatives are willingly stepping off some of these platforms instead of fighting back and saying, no, I'm going to tweet and post whatever I want to stand up against cancel culture.
	So I think first off, because you're filling in for Dr. G, when you say my name, Jetty, you have to say Grant.
	Grant Stanchfield.
	That's a horrible impression, but yeah, okay.
	So awesome.
	I love it.
	But you're right.
	I'm sticking it out on Twitter.
	I'm battling the fight there.
	And I know Dr. G thinks the same way.
	I know you're doing the same thing.
	And I'm also dabbling in these other sites as well, because in many places where I can spread my message, which is very similar to your message, I mean, but we blanket the area.
	And I'm not backing down.
	You're going to have to kick me off kicking and screaming.
	Because whether we like it or not, Twitter really is still the main spot that reporters are looking for content, which is one reason why I post things there.
	It's not just for the people.
	It's for the media that they need to get a message.
	And I know President Trump was the same way.
	One of the reasons why he tweeted was for the media, to see what he was tweeting.
	Absolutely.
	And you know, if we're not tweeting, if we're not getting the conservative perspective out there and the conservative opinion, then who will?
	Then you're just left with, you know, Brian Stelter, Potato Head over at CNN, or, you know, Joy Reid.
	I love when President Trump goes, you know, who is that?
	That was so great.
	Over at MSNBC, it's like, we don't want to just let the liberals dominate the narrative.
	We have to get out there and say, no, this is what conservatism is.
	We are standing for the Constitution.
	We are standing firm for the principles of liberty and freedom and fight back.
	You know, I'm convinced, though, that even there, they may not ban me or ban you, but this whole idea of shadow banning, meaning that Your post is limited.
	They're not showing it to everybody.
	You think you tweeted it out there, but nobody's seeing it.
	I am confident that happens when I start tweeting about controversial issues like the Wuhan lab and the leak that I believe happened there.
	And I'll be like, 12 likes.
	And I'm like, how is this 12 likes?
	Well, we need to get you more likes.
	Follow Grant Grunt Stinchfield right now at Stinchfield 1776 on Twitter.
	Grant, thanks so much for joining me.
	Watch his show 8 p.m.
	Eastern on Newsmax.
	And I will be back with you for another two hours talking about big tech and censorship right here on America First Today with Jenna Ellis.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	My good friend and colleague Trish Regan is known as one of the bravest conservative voices in this country.
	Now I'm proud to tell you about her exciting new podcast, American Consequences.
	With the biggest guests in the country, including yours truly, Trish talks about the topics the mainstream refuses to cover.
	Weekly, the American Consequences podcast dives deep into the fiscal and monetary policy, politics and economics you need to know about.
	Learn more.
	at AmericanConsequences.com. AmericanConsequences.com
	AmericanConsequences.com
	.
	��
	��
	��
	��
	��
	��
	�� Transcribed
	by ESO, translated by — translated by —
	Transcribed by — She's the chair of the Election Integrity Alliance, former attorney to President Donald Trump, and we're delighted to welcome our special guest host, Jenna Ellis.
	Today, in conjunction with the America First Policy Institute, I'm filing, as the lead class representative, a major class action lawsuit against the big tech giants, including Facebook, Google, and Twitter, as well as their CEOs, Mark Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai, and Jack Dorsey.
	Three real nice guys.
	Welcome to the second hour of America First.
	I'm Jenna Ellis filling in for the great Dr. Sebastian Gorka, and today we are talking all about big tech censorship and President Trump continuing to be the tip of the spear in fighting against cancel culture censorship.
	And he is doing more, by the way, out of office than Joe Biden ever did in 47 years of whatever offices he pretended to hold.
	He is the great pretender now, even though he Yeah, you know, technically he's the president, but is he really running this country?
	I don't think so.
	You don't think so.
	A majority of Americans, even 31% of Democrats, by the way, don't think so.
	In a Trafalgar Group study that I found fascinating, which was in connection with our good friends at the Convention of States Project, put out a survey That was from the end of June that nearly 57% of Americans who are likely voters in 2022 do not think that Joe Biden is running this country.
	That includes 31% of Democrats.
	That tells you something.
	And I think that we need to have confidence as Americans in who our government is because our government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people, we the people, need to be able to select and prefer who we put in office.
	So we will continue here on America First, of course, also on my show on Real America's Voice.
	You can download that app right now.
	You can download Roku, Apple TV, Pluto, Dish Network, all of those that we are on for Real America's Voice, my show live at 6 p.m.
	every weeknight.
	It's called Just the Truth.
	We do deep dives.
	I love this radio format because we have the opportunity to do some deep dive discussions And so that is my format on Just the Truth, is that I have really deep dive conversations on issues that you care about as the American people, as conservatives, and of course as Christians.
	I am a conservative Christian, and I'm an evangelical Christian, and the biblical worldview is the foundation of our Judeo-Christian founded society.
	And when we look at our Declaration of Independence that we just celebrated last weekend, and we look at what our founder said is that brilliant worldview statement that we hold truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, they're endowed by their creator.
	Not their government with certain unalienable rights among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
	They went on to say that governments are instituted among men for the reason, the sole purpose, to preserve and protect our rights.
	And so we're talking now about the civil rights that are supposed to be protected by the Constitution, especially the right to freedom of speech that is specifically enumerated in our First Amendment.
	And the reason that it's enumerated is because our government is specifically obligated to preserve and protect our rights.
	And our founders knew that there were a lot of rights that were specifically targeted by a lot of governments who want too much power.
	And that is what President Trump is fighting against with these big tech lawsuits.
	That's what my guest in the first hour, Harmeet Dhillon, is fighting against.
	So many great people, including Brooke Rollins, who is my next guest.
	She is the president and CEO of America First Policy Institute, which is, of course, helping with President Trump's big tech lawsuit.
	So, Brooke, thank you so much for joining me today.
	You are an attorney.
	You are amazing.
	Tell us why this is going to be successful.
	Well, thank you for having me.
	That was actually a beautiful opening statement or monologue from you.
	I enjoyed that very much.
	Thank you for having me.
	We on Wednesday, a lot of America tuned in to see the former president and my former boss.
	I was his domestic policy chief and worked right alongside him for three years in the White House.
	But for the first time, I believe unprecedented in American history, Uh, stand up and say, I am going to fight for you and I'm going to fight in every possible avenue I have.
	And the one we're talking about today is the judiciary because no longer are we going to allow big tech, a handful of big companies control the narrative and the public square of America.
	And not only that, not only am I going to use the judiciary, not only today and I, and this is the president.
	President Trump, not only am I filing a lawsuit on behalf of what happened to me, but much more importantly, I'm going to file a class action lawsuit that represents the tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of great Americans who have been censored or banned or shadow flagged or whatever it is, deplatformed, because we will not stand for this any longer.
	So that was announced Wednesday.
	I was able to stand right alongside.
	The President, as he announced it, my organization that I help lead, the America First Policy Institute, our constitutional litigation partnership is in partnership with a great group of lawyers, great team of lawyers who are going to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court.
	So we're really encouraged that finally our side, the conservatives in America, the real Americans, real patriots who are standing up every day will have a voice.
	And this is so wonderful, Brooke, and thank you so much for doing this, because, you know, President Trump is also my former boss, and I think you probably have the same perspective that I do, that once working for Trump, kind of always working with Trump, because he's just such a wonderful, wonderful person, and I love him dearly, and I love that he fights for America.
	And so, you know, getting to do this with him, the America First Policy Institute, and really leading the way to fight back against censorship and cancel culture.
	This is amazing.
	You're there right now at CPAC in Dallas and just came off talking to a group.
	You're going to be taking the main stage tomorrow, so everyone tune in to CPAC tomorrow.
	Definitely listen to Brooke.
	But I want to ask you more specifically because, you know, you're an attorney, As well, Brooke, and some of the pushback against this lawsuit is saying, well, you know, this is a class action.
	It's filed in Florida.
	They're claiming that these private tech companies are state actors.
	And so all of this is totally ridiculous.
	You look at some of these.
	idiots over at the Lincoln Project who just kind of try to tweet their way into somehow saying that this is not going to be successful.
	But what people need to recognize, what all Americans need to recognize is why the Constitution preserves and protects freedom of speech, and that you can't use Twitter and Facebook and some of these private companies as basically an extension of the government who take funding from them, take protection and that you can't use Twitter and Facebook and some of these private companies as basically an extension of the government who take funding from them, take protection from them, in order to So,
	So in this suit specifically, explain that a little bit on how the argument that I think is very novel, it's interesting, it's fascinating.
	Why, specifically in this lawsuit, you are claiming that Big Tech is a state actor?
	So, it is an interesting and somewhat novel approach.
	You're a thousand percent right, but basically, and we've tossed these terms around for so long, but the people who are listening today, just a quick sort of context.
	In 1996, the Communications Act was passed, and as part of that was Section 230.
	People have been talking about Section 230 now for the last couple of years, but it's important for this reason.
	It was first voted upon by our elected officials in 1996, when the Internet was a nascent organization, a nascent concept, right?
	There may have been maybe a couple million people who were utilizing it, and it immediately became apparent that it could, while it was a really great idea and could change, really, and it has, I don't think anyone realized how much, but could change, frankly, the trajectory of our world, At the time, it could also be used for very, very bad things like child pornography, child trafficking.
	And so the original intent of Section 230 was to give immunity to those companies.
	Now, Mark Zuckerberg was in middle school, right?
	There was no Facebook.
	There was no Twitter at the time.
	There was no Google.
	Simpler time.
	Yeah, but that we needed to basically protect the ability of the companies running the Internet to pull down material that could be deemed dangerous to children.
	That was the whole intent.
	So now, of course, having no idea in 96 what would be happening in 2021 in terms of the censorship, under the auspice of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Act, these companies are using that for immunity to say, oh man, we can't have you post anything about why masks are potentially not needed for children.
	Oh goodness gracious, don't post anything about hydroxychloroquine.
	Oh, no, the New York Post is posting something about Hunter Biden's laptop.
	I mean, it's remarkable what these companies are using under the Section 230 protection to basically censor everyday Americans and especially the conservative viewpoint.
	So your point, your question, Twitter, Facebook, Google have been using Section 230.
	And guess what?
	That's not OK.
	It's unconstitutional.
	The First Amendment never considered.
	We're going to take a break right here and I want to unpack this a little bit more in the next segment.
	I'm talking with Brooke Rollins.
	She is the president and CEO of America First Policy Institute.
	Follow her right now at A1, the number one A1 policy on Twitter because guess what?
	Conservatives need to make sure that we are staying on these social media platforms when we can because we don't like to be censored.
	We have to put our opinions out on the web.
	We have to fight for our freedoms.
	Litigation is one of the best ways to do that.
	So we'll be right back talking more here on America First.
	America First Thank
	you.
	Thank you.
	��
	��
	��
	�� I'll
	be right back.
	America First!
	Magnificent!
	Complacency is a weakness that patriots can't afford, and for this reason, CAR Firearms is teaming up with America First in 2021.
	CAR believes Americans shouldn't be afraid to publicly appeal for our freedoms.
	This is about more than being gun enthusiasts.
	This is personal.
	Fighting for the soul of America, CAR wants America First listeners to know that they are not afraid to publicly support the Second Amendment.
	Friday.
	This is America First.
	I'm Jenna Ellis filling in for Sebastian Gorka, and we are Second Amendment lovers of liberty, and we also love the First Amendment.
	We love all of our Bill of Rights.
	Why?
	Because our founders understood that it wasn't enough to say, Congress, in Article 1, Section 8, these are the things that you can legislate on.
	They knew that Congress was going to, of course, try to go beyond that, so they specifically enumerated protected rights that governments most often infringe upon, and they knew that a Bill of Rights was going to protect our liberties and freedoms.
	Because all of our liberties and freedoms are protected.
	In the United States founding, we did not give over any of our rights to government in exchange for protection.
	We established a government of the people, by the people, for the people, so that our government is obligated to preserve and protect our rights.
	Among these, the First Amendment protects our essential first freedoms, which is what we're doing right now.
	Our freedom of speech, freedom of association, free exercise of religion, which is what?
	Speaking together about truth.
	We are truthfully speaking.
	This is America First.
	I'm Jenna Ellis, and my guest for this hour is Brooke Rollins.
	She is the president and CEO of America First Policy Institute.
	Brilliant attorney.
	And Brooke, we've been talking about President Trump's lawsuit in connection with the America First Policy Institute and why this is so important and essential to protecting our liberties against big tech moving forward.
	So before the break, you were talking about why this is so important, how you are proceeding in kind of a novel way.
	And I think that litigation should advance the law into the 21st century, advance the law and the rule of law to make sure that we continue to preserve and protect these fundamental civil rights liberties and we really really need to do that so to talk about this lawsuit in the context of class action and you know what you anticipate will be kind of the first objection from big tech and surmounting that challenge.
	Well, there's no doubt that it is David suing Goliath here.
	From, you know, those of us, I was a federal clerk, I worked at a big law firm, I actually worked on class actions on the defense side, interestingly enough, before I moved into public policy a couple, well, it's been a little while, a couple years ago, but a billion new cycles ago.
	Yeah, that's exactly right.
	But there's no doubt that they're going to have some of the best lawyers from the biggest law firms billing millions of dollars to do whatever they can to shut this down.
	But we've got an incredible group of litigators.
	The former lead tobacco lawyer is really heading this up and some others who are used to winning in court and they know what they're doing and they've worked on class actions before.
	But obviously, you know, the other side, big tech is going to push back on venue.
	They're going to want us out there in Palo Alto.
	And we filed in the Southern District of Florida, which is where the lead class representative, Donald J. Trump, lives.
	So I think we'll have an interesting fight on that one.
	Then it Then, of course, they're going to move to dismiss immediately under First Amendment causes.
	But as we talked about in your prior segment, Section 230, Clarence Thomas has written in other cases and in some dissents that it's time for the U.S.
	Supreme Court to really take a look at the First Amendment and especially the big text, complete domination of the public square and of the public dialogue these days.
	So I think we're going to have a good shot to win on all of our issues at the trial court.
	But I also think if we move up through the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals into the Supreme Court on probably multiple issues, we're going to see the battle of David and Goliath.
	I think we're going to see David win.
	And that is such a great and an apt picture of what this is, and it shouldn't be that way because, of course, we the people should be always the Goliath in the room, right?
	We are the ones that are supposed to be running the government.
	And that's what President Trump understood and why, Brooke, as you saw in your time at the White House, as I saw in my time working for President Trump on the campaign side and as his personal counsel, that he came into D.C. to clean, to drain the swamp, clean out all of this bureaucracy that is so disgustingly clean out all of this bureaucracy that is so disgustingly embedded in D.C. to say, you know, this needs to be citizen led.
	And for him to be doing this and fighting these types of lawsuits and really standing up for for the law, For the little guys out there, I mean, for people who have been censored on social media, on platforms like YouTube that maybe don't have the resources to do this, they can join this class and they can say, you know, yeah, I have been affected by this.
	My civil liberties have been infringed upon.
	And this is something that big tech in the tech oligarch world, you know, they they should not be sitting comfortably at this point, I don't think.
	And so for people listening who may say, you know, hey, I'm part of this class.
	I have been affected in, you know, in some way.
	Is there a way for them to reach out to you at America First Policy Institute and ask to be part of this class?
	Or what are you looking for in terms of filing this as a class action?
	Well, first of all, I want to say, at the very top end, takeonbigtech.com.
	Takeonbigtech.com.
	That is where you can share your story of censorship with us.
	And in the last 48 hours, Jenna, we've had 36,000 Americans who have shared their stories of censorship.
	Wow.
	Clearly, there's a huge movement out there that was waiting for this.
	But the second part I want to say is, I couldn't agree with you more.
	When I introduced the president at the press conference, but introduced him to then he announced the lawsuit.
	That's what I talked about.
	I said, you know, what this president stood for for four years, but what this lawsuit now stands for is who gets to decide in America.
	Are we still a country where the people rule and where the people get to decide, or are we a country where a handful of central planners, elites, big companies get to decide for us?
	And that's really what's at stake.
	Yeah, and so go to, and I just pulled this up here, takeonbigtech.com.
	This is great.
	This is America First Policy Institute.
	We will put this up at our America First website, and also we'll tweet this out.
	This is great.
	Constitutional Litigation Partnership, and you're absolutely right, Brooke, that we the people need to continue this type of litigation and these challenges because, you know, conservatives often will say, oh, we're in an overabundance of litigation, and that's not really You know, the way to do things in America.
	We don't just take all of our gripes to court.
	But what I think conservatives need to understand in the wider swath of this is that litigation, especially civil litigation, is a very useful tool for advancing the law forward and holding Not only private companies accountable, but then also, of course, the government accountable to stay in the lane of the law.
	And we need to make sure that we are not only participating, if you're part of that class, but I also see this tab that's also very important to donate.
	A lot of people, Brooke, have said, you know, ah, this is just something to fundraise and, you know, look at this and the whole grifting language.
	I don't think so.
	I think we need to push back against all of that nonsense because it takes really, very carefully dedicated expert lawyers to bring on these types of challenges that takes a lot of time and resources.
	And so even if you're not part of this class, you can still participate in helping stop big tech by donating.
	I'm not paid to say that I don't care.
	I am an average American who really cares about these types of lawsuits.
	As an attorney, I have seen lawsuits Move the ball forward and that is a great way instead of just donating frankly to like the RNC and you have no idea where your money is going, donate now to the America First Policy Institute and participate in some of these lawsuits financially by helping pay for the people who are making these arguments like Brooke Rollins, like other champions for freedom out there.
	We'll be right back here on America First with Brooke Rollins to continue to talk about these issues.
	The End
	��
	��
	��
	��
	��
	��
	�� Thank you.
	Thank you.
	On the side of the U.S.
	Constitution, America First.
	Car Firearms is fighting for America.
	Car executives stand with America First.
	They are willing to put their brand's reputation on the line to stand up for liberty.
	Please support our new Second Amendment Friday sponsor.
	So portions of America First are brought to you by Car Firearms.
	And I'm a fan of the Second Amendment, of course, and I'm a fan of all of our amendments, right?
	Amendment 19.
	Hey, I'm a woman.
	I can vote.
	It's a good thing, right?
	So we have the U.S.
	Constitution for a reason, but we also have as our charter for America, our founding documents.
	We can't forget about the Declaration because that gave the unanimous mandate to our government that you're obligated to preserve and protect our rights, that come from God, our Creator, our liberties and freedoms, liberty and justice for all.
	Our founders understood that.
	And Brooke Rollins, who is my guest, she is the President and CEO of America First Policy Institute.
	Follow them right now on social media.
	The Twitter handle is at A, the number one policy.
	And you can follow me at JennaLSESQ.
	But Brooke, you know, in the grander narrative of this, Where do you see all of this heading?
	Why is it so important, not just to fight back against big tech, which is what we're talking about today, but in the grander scope of why conservative values in America First policies, like what America First Policy Institute stands for, so incredibly important?
	That's such a great question, and it's one that I think is imperative if we have any chance of saving the soul of this country.
	I mean, we really are in a battle.
	I think for so long, the left and the progressives have outgunned us in so many ways, whether it's communications and changing hearts and minds.
	You know, they talk in stories.
	We talk in numbers.
	And President Trump kind of flipped us on that.
	I mean, he really taught us how to go in and fight, but also how to make sure we make our case in a compelling way by branding what we're doing.
	But the left has outgunned us in the judiciary in terms of using the courts to advance their side, and we've not done that, and we're changing that now.
	I mean, this class action will be really the first of its kind, but hopefully more to come.
	They've outgunned us in many ways.
	Obviously, they outspend us.
	have outgunned us in the legislatures.
	But I tell you what, Jenna, we've got truth and the righteous concept of Judeo-Christian values.
	We've got the Constitution.
	We've got our founding father's vision for this country.
	I mean, the truth is really on our side.
	And if we can continue to build the America First movement, I sincerely believe we're going to save this country, not just for the next five or 10 years, but the next 250 years.
	What does this next half of America look like?
	So well said, Brooke.
	And that's the grander scope of this.
	I think what a lot of Americans who love this country, who are still so proud to be Americans.
	I mean, every time I say this so often that when President Trump comes out on that stage on the rallies to proud to be an American, it is a unifying moment that we all understand.
	It doesn't matter our race, our gender, any of these things.
	It matters that we are all under a common creed of understanding that the truth of the reality to which God presents us, which is that he endows us with our rights.
	And America can create a more perfect union when we stand boldly in that truth.
	That's something that is always so inspiring.
	And so in just the last few minutes we have here in this segment with you, beyond, you know, giving, of course, to the America First Policy Institute, where you guys are on the ground actually doing this.
	People know where their money is going to go and that it's supporting President Trump directly, supporting constitutional litigation.
	What are the other tangible ways that you would say that Americans can get involved Well, you can go to AmericaFirstPolicy.com, sign up for our emails right away.
	We will be soon launching state-by-state efforts to move the America First agenda forward.
	It's not, we're a 501c3 tax-deductible, nonpartisan donation, but much more importantly is building the Army to move the issues forward.
	So, again, we're nonpartisan, but at the end of the day, conservative, free market, freedom, liberty, America First agenda items, getting school choice passed in our state legislatures, moving health care freedom forward where you choose your doctor, the government doesn't choose your doctor, funding our police and making sure our criminal justice system is just and right.
	All those key issues that we push forward in the White House, we now move to the states where the people really are.
	So we continue to fight the Biden administration and all the craziness that's happening there.
	But also we go on offense, and we go on offense in the states, And so building that army, obviously giving to AFPI is great, but much more importantly, getting, you know, getting in the game, moving onto the field and leaving it all there for this great country.
	Brooke, thanks so much for joining me and definitely follow the America First Policy Institute.
	And, you know, what she said is so important that we have to, like President Trump always said through the pandemic, through everything in his tenure in office, was saying, We have to appreciate our Constitution, its design of the separation of powers, of federalism.
	We need to be on the state and local level.
	And that is so important.
	Get engaged.
	Get involved in the Election Integrity Alliance.
	I am the chairwoman of the Election Integrity Alliance.
	Sebastian Gorka, who I'm filling in for right now, is one of my board members.
	And you can find us at AmericanGreatnessFund.com.
	And there are so many allies across the country doing the work of America first.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right
	back. .
	My good friend and colleague Trish Regan is known as one of the bravest conservative voices in this country.
	Now I'm proud to tell you about her exciting new podcast, American Consequences.
	With the biggest guests in the country, including yours truly, Trish talks about the topics the mainstream refuses to cover.
	Weekly, the American Consequences podcast dives deep into the fiscal and monetary policy, politics and economics you need to know about.
	Learn more at AmericanConsequences.com.
	AmericanConsequences.com
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Car Firearms is fighting for America.
	Car executives stand with us here at America First and are willing to put their brand's reputation on the line to stand up for liberty.
	Please support our Second Amendment Friday sponsor Car Firearms.
	The people, the first Yes, people, it wasn't the Glock 43.
	It was the PMCM9 decades ago.
	Tiny, smaller than a PPK.
	Made in America.
	Full 9mm.
	I carry one every single day.
	Check out their amazing line of weapons at KAHR.com.
	That's K-A-H-R dot com.
	And I am delighted for our Second Amendment segment to welcome none other than the man behind one of the coolest Gun channels out there.
	It's the Gun Collective on YouTube.
	Follow them at Gun Collective on Twitter.
	His name is John Patton.
	John, welcome back to America First!
	Dude, thank you for having me back.
	It's always a pleasure.
	Alright.
	It's a pleasure, but I'm getting increasingly irritated because every time we sign off we say, I'll see you at the gun range and we still haven't done that!
	We've got to do that!
	We've got to do that.
	It's depressing.
	Alright.
	It's depressing.
	I know.
	We will.
	I promise.
	This year, this year, whether it's Knob Creek or somewhere else, last Knob Creek ever is going to be this year, so somewhere we will make it happen.
	Okay.
	I want to talk about The last of your videos that I watched about two days ago, three days ago, that was superb because it's the... I don't... What did the ATF drop?
	How many... What was it?
	110 pages?
	What was that thing about braces?
	How long was it?
	Oh, it was between... It was a couple different documents.
	In between the two, I think it was over 120 pages of, you know, nonsense.
	Right.
	And you waded through it and you gave us a great summary.
	Guys, you need to watch it.
	Go to The Gun Collective on YouTube.
	But at the end of the day, this is dictatorial.
	This document is basically retroactively criminalizing and creating felons based on utterly subjective criteria.
	Is that an overstatement, John?
	Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous.
	They decided to put together a worksheet to assign points to, like, just completely arbitrarily assign points to different features of a firearm with a brace on it, including, you know, the weight of the firearm, whether or not it has sights on it.
	Or the best one I love, whether or not the brace looks like a stock.
	Yeah, because if it looks like something different, we're going to be totally upset about it.
	It's completely asinine, the whole thing.
	So, how does this compare to all the other things you've seen in the past?
	Is this par for the course from the cretins of ATF?
	Or is this worse than before?
	And how can we get involved?
	I saw Tim Harmson, Military Arms Channel, a few days ago, he posted the number of comments on the comments page saying, guys, this is pathetic.
	We've got to have 100,000 comments right now.
	So are we doing enough?
	And how serious is this first, John?
	So, first of all, it is extremely serious because this is the sort of cannon shot through the doorway of freedom being destroyed.
	And what I mean by that is that this, if they're allowed to Decide after the fact.
	Eight years after they said it was okay.
	After millions, millions of braces have been sold in America.
	Millions.
	Right, right.
	You know, we talk about common use from cases like Heller versus DC and I would argue that millions of a product existed and being used is common use, but that's a sidetrack.
	The point is, ATF is off their rocker.
	And the way to go against them and tell them you don't want to deal with any of their tyrannical nonsense is to submit a comment.
	Uh, there are many, many links out there.
	You could just type in, uh, pistol brace ban 2021, and then you'll be able to find a way to make comments.
	Uh, but the idea is to make a legitimate, not like a ranting comment, like a legitimate comment about why that potential rule, it's proposed rule, why that is not okay.
	And, you know, basically let them know.
	At this point, what's amazing, just a couple days ago, over 100 members of Congress came together and said, whoa, pump the brakes.
	And that's similar to what happened when they tried to do something like this last year.
	The people are noticing.
	The powers that be are noticing.
	Everybody outside of the ATF is noticing.
	All of this arbitrary bureaucratic crap that they're trying to pull, which is basically a backdoor ban on firearms.
	And last year there was, remind me of the details, there was success, there was a similar attempt at some action, and there was a comments page, and wasn't the federal comments page flooded, John?
	Yeah, it was a substantial amount of comments, all in a very short period of time.
	I believe we're on pace or higher than that, which is great.
	We want to see more.
	We want to see People, like, if you own a firearm, an AR pistol, an AK pistol, if you don't own one, you need to be paying attention to this because if the ATF is allowed to decide that your gun is too heavy for a certain type of use and therefore you are either a felon or you pay them money, that's extortion!
	Yeah.
	Well, not only that, I mean, if you don't take action, you become retroactively a felon.
	Unless you pay the $200 federal tax, you get it registered, or you destroy it, or whatever, you're automatically becoming a felon.
	So, what is the phrase you use?
	The cannon shot through the door?
	Even if you don't own a brace, you have to take it seriously, because this could happen with any category of weapon, correct?
	Yeah, if they're allowed to do this with, you know, a random accessory that they're upset about for no apparent reason... Oh, which by the way, guys... By the way, guys, most of these accessories are made of plastic.
	So they're making you a felon based upon a piece of plastic that is added to the buffer tube of your gun.
	John, individuals making comments, they've got to do that.
	What are the gun organizations, the gun rights organizations that you recommend?
	I think you should be looking at Firearms Policy Coalition, the Gun Owners of America, Second Amendment Foundation, groups that are truly out there fighting for rights.
	You should also look at your state-level organizations, there are a lot of them out there, and stand behind those groups and move in the same direction with all firearms owners.
	It's the internet home for gun news that you actually care about.
	It's a tagline, but it's true.
	Trust me, because I watch every single video he drops.
	Keep doing what you do.
	Best of Genevieve.
	Follow this man at Gun Collective on Twitter and subscribe right now on YouTube to the Gun Collective.
	Thank you, John.
	I'm Sebastian Gawker.
	This is America First on the Salem Radio Network, coming to you from the ReliefFactor.com studio.
	The End
	The End
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	. - Peace.
	From the very beginning of our nation, freedom of speech has always been understood as a bedrock of our liberty and our strength.
	In America, we recognize that the freedom to speak our minds and express the truth that is our Really, that's really a big chunk of our heart.
	It is our heart.
	It is not granted to us by government.
	It's given to us by God, and no one should have the power to take that right away.
	That was the boss himself, Donald J. Trump, talking at his presser, announcing the Big Tech lawsuit.
	And he's so right.
	I'm Jenna Ellis.
	I am filling in today for Dr. Sebastian Gorka here on America First.
	And stay with me through the next hour as we continue to talk about these very important issues.
	You know, this isn't just about censorship.
	This isn't just about, as Seb talked in the last segment, about our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
	What this is about is conserving the fundamental principles of liberty that America was founded on.
	Why are we called America First?
	Why is this so important that we are conserving our fundamental values that our founders recognized for really the first time in world history?
	That the nation was built not on the powers of government, But on the rights granted by God to we the people, to every human being who is made in the image of God and has inherent dignity and worth just by virtue of being a member of the human race.
	That is what makes America so great, so special, so truthful.
	So wonderful.
	And we need to understand why our Constitution was created, why the separation of powers is so important, why we can be proud to be Americans, and why all of this ridiculous talk from the liberal left that wants to make you ashamed to be an American, to point to things that aren't perfect and say that defines America.
	Well, no.
	You know what?
	I'm a Christian.
	I'm not a perfect Christian.
	Can you point to my life and say I've made mistakes?
	Absolutely.
	But I understand that it's not the truth of the Word of God and the truth of Christianity is not dependent on how well I carry it out.
	It depends, ultimately, on the person of God himself, who is the personification of truth.
	And what makes America great is not the mistakes in our history, not how much we can move forward in continuing to create a more perfect union, but that we were established and founded upon the eternal, immutable principles and values of the Judeo-Christian worldview that is derived from the God of the Bible.
	That's what makes America great, and we have to stand firmly for the truth and be proud to be Americans because we are founded on this country, on those principles of truth.
	That's what we're conserving.
	That's what this is all about.
	That's what we have to tell Joe Biden and all of these other crazy bureaucrats in D.C.
	We are proud to be Americans because we understand our rights come from God, our creator, like Donald Trump said.
	I'll see you in the next hour right here on America First.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Now I'm proud to tell you about her exciting new podcast, American Consequences.
	With the biggest guests in the country, including yours truly, Trish talks about the topics the mainstream refuses to cover.
	Weekly, the American Consequences podcast dives deep into the fiscal and monetary policy, politics and economics you need to know about.
	Learn more at AmericanConsequences.com.
	AmericanConsequences.com
	Thank you.
	��
	��
	��
	��
	��
	�� Thank you.
	Thank you.
	She's the chair of the Election Integrity Alliance, former attorney to President Donald Trump, and we're delighted to welcome our special guest host, Jenna Ellis.
	Welcome to America First!
	I am Jenna Ellis.
	This is already the third hour.
	I love radio so much because we can have these deep dive conversations and give you the tools to go out and fight for conservative values, principles for America First policy.
	For the understanding of the Judeo-Christian worldview and how the truth of the infallible, inerrant word of God is the foundation of our society, people who don't believe in God are still benefiting, of course, from the recognition at our founding that our rights come from God, from the recognition at our founding that our rights come from God, our creator, not And the sole purpose of government is to preserve and protect those rights.
	We've gotten so far away from that central truth when we see this kind of bickering back and forth between the partisan political parties and all of that.
	And it's very interesting what the media is doing to combat against this whole America First agenda and the conservative principles.
	And so we've been talking in the last two hours.
	Definitely go back and watch on Rumble on social media.
	Follow me at Jenna Ellis ESQ across social platforms until I get canceled.
	But follow me there.
	And we've been talking for the last two hours about this big tech lawsuit, why it's so important to fight back against censorship, why it's so important to protect our First Amendment freedoms.
	And really, it's our freedoms that come from God that our First Amendment obligates our government to preserve and protect, right?
	There's a difference.
	Even if our First Amendment were completely gone tomorrow because, you know, of some crazy thing, we would still have the same rights because they come from God, our Creator, not the First Amendment, right?
	So, we need to understand all of these things in context, and what the media is doing is trying to shape the narrative so falsely and to push back against anyone who champions what our Constitution actually says and the principles of liberty in our Declaration from which it was derived.
	So, for the next few minutes, I'm going to talk with my next special guest, my good friend John Bachman.
	He, of course, is the wonderful Newsmax host from 12 to 2 p.m.
	Eastern.
	I am a regular guest everywhere.
	Every Tuesday, sometimes Wednesday, sometimes Thursday, but definitely a regular guest with John Bachman on Newsmax.
	You can watch him from 12 to 2 every day.
	So John, you and I were having a conversation just yesterday about the backlash against Alan Dershowitz simply for standing up for principles of liberty and freedom, and I find this so fascinating.
	Play Cut 7.
	The First Amendment doesn't only protect the speaker, Donald Trump.
	It protects you and me, the listener, the viewer.
	And what's happening now is Big Tech is depriving us, the American citizens, of the right to hear and see information, because if it's banned from the social media, We have no access to it.
	And that's why this is such an important case involving every citizen.
	And it's not only President Trump's been banned.
	I've been banned.
	I had a debate with Bobby Kennedy.
	Here you have two liberal Democrats debating.
	I debated in favor of more vigorous vaccination.
	He was more skeptical of vaccination.
	They took down the debate.
	They didn't like what he said, so they took down the debate.
	And they deprive the American public of the right to see a very thoughtful, educational debate.
	And they're doing it more and more, and if they're not stopped, this will be the end of freedom of speech as we know it, because these companies now control the marketplace of ideas.
	So this is Alan Dershowitz's opinion.
	He, of course, is a registered Democrat.
	But, John, the backlash against Alan Dershowitz for saying that this is the most important lawsuit in the 21st century was astounding.
	It's not only astounding, Jenna, and I'm sure from your perspective, you know, you have the law degree and the practice of law behind it.
	But from my perspective, watching the same people at once upon a time, many moons ago, that I kind of respected and admired, fall over themselves to criticize him so quickly that there is no possible way they could even absorb the information that Professor Dershowitz fall over themselves to criticize him so quickly that there is no possible way And the thing you have to appreciate about Alan Dershowitz is that he doesn't care if you like him or not.
	He has really a commitment, almost a religious commitment to the law, that he's going to tell you exactly how he believes the law should be applied or how something applies to the law.
	And, you know, he comes from a different era where you, you know, his, his objective is not to make people like him.
	His objective is to be right, basically, and to be consistent with his, um, definition of the way things should be.
	And I find it fascinating.
	That, you know, in this day and age, after everything he's done, defending OJ Simpson, defending Mike Tyson, defending Michael Milken, that it's only now that, you know, he's getting laughed out of the room just simply because he has a very strong opinion about the First Amendment.
	Now, when it comes to these tech companies, you know, Jenna, they've told us for the last You know, 10 years that their business model is to become the public square.
	And we've let them do that.
	And they've benefited greatly from this special protection where, you know, I think it was Facebook, for example, that allowed the New Zealand mosque shooter to live stream himself for like nine minutes before they took it off.
	And it drove a lot of traffic.
	And that traffic drove a lot of advertisements, you know, that wasn't their objective, but they didn't stop it from happening, even though they were able to see the spike in traffic.
	Um, and then they're not held responsible for that.
	And when you compare that to something like what happened, um, during the super bowl, when it was 2003 or four, when you had the notorious wardrobe malfunction, um, you know, I, I remember this because I worked at a local CVS affiliate in Augusta, Georgia when it happened.
	And, you know, we were really concerned about how the fine was going to affect the bottom line of these stations.
	And at the time, this is market 115.
	And if anybody has worked in local news in a small market, I mean, it is, it's minor league stuff.
	It's got, it's a lot of young people, hardworking people, you know, trying to make their way, but the margins are thin.
	And there was real concern about, and you see the double standard here between something like that and what Facebook got away with when the mosque
	Yeah, and that's really, John, I mean, that's what we've been talking about, you know, with Brooke Rollins from the America First Policy Institute and then, you know, Hermie Dillon in the first hour to say, you know, part of this argument is to say that a lot of these big tech companies are essentially state actors because they have not only
	Just the protections of government in a collusion sort of sense or a cooperation, you know, talk about genuine collusion, not this arena Russia, Russia, Russia narrative, but then to say that, you know, they are benefiting from essentially being state actors and They are infringing upon our constitutionally protected rights in a way that is absolutely untenable, and it is an infringement.
	And, you know, when you're talking about somebody like Alan Dershowitz, who is giving a very lucid, informed legal opinion, people don't even want to talk about the merit of that opinion.
	It reminds me of You know, the 2020 election.
	Nobody wanted to talk about the merit of what we were saying.
	They just wanted to attack and attack and attack President Trump.
	Me as an attorney, I mean, look at what they're doing to Rudy Giuliani.
	You know, America's mayor, who is given so much to this country, they're literally trying to disbar him simply for representing a legal position, representing a client, and making arguments in the public square.
	This is absurd that we've gotten to this point in this country.
	And this is something that's very important, something we've seen happen where going back to, you know, the impeachment or, you know, you have junior or associate level attorneys working on defense cases and they'll get threatened, you know, with doxing and things like that.
	You should not go after lawyers in this country.
	You know, there are a lot of jokes about how nobody likes a lawyer.
	But again, you're not— They don't let—nobody likes a lawyer until they need one.
	Nobody likes us until they need us.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	And so, I mean, that's the whole thing is like, you know, you got to go by—lawyers are almost like umpires.
	They got to sell like it is.
	You might not like them personally, but you need them to be consistent, and that's what I always look for when I'm always having somebody on about a legal thing.
	That's what I like about you.
	I have Professor Dershowitz on.
	You guys understand what the Constitution is, and you're consistent, and I know what I'm getting in your legal analysis, and that's what's the most important.
	That's the information that I want to convey to my audience on Newsmax.
	Uh, and the basic fundamentals of the Constitution.
	That's something that, you know, you're a conservative, Professor Dershowitz is a liberal, but you guys both always seem to have, find, you know, something that I agree with as the journalist, you know, in the middle, as the foundation of what our Constitution is really supposed to be about.
	Totally.
	And, you know, what I find really interesting as well about, you know, even though Alan Dershowitz and I, you know, we've been on many segments together, I've had him on, you know, prior radio programs of mine and so forth, is that at least we should agree that the rule of law prevails.
	And when you go into a judicial forum, Those rules are fixed.
	They need to prevail.
	We can all make arguments.
	That's what advocacy is.
	But we all need to recognize and agree on the principles of the founding of America.
	And that's what I love about the law is that consistency.
	We'll be right back with my special guest, John Bachman, who is the host on Newsmax 12 to 2 p.m.
	Eastern, Monday through Friday.
	Follow him now at John F. Bachman.
	We'll be right back on America First.
	The End
	This is America First with Sebastian Gorka.
	Now back to our guest host, Jenna Ellis.
	Welcome to America First.
	This is one of my favorite songs.
	Again, I love the bumper music.
	This is on my Spotify playlist.
	It's awesome.
	We are talking about media credibility, the fundamental fairness, really, of what the game is all about.
	I mean, because we can debate politics, we can debate, you know, all of these policy positions.
	But when we're talking about big tech censorship, when we're talking about treatment of President Trump in the media, when we're talking about censorship on social media and not even being able to express an opinion that goes against the grand narrative of the bureaucrats that be.
	This is something that is so ingrained in Americans that we understand justice.
	We understand meaningful, appropriate justice.
	We understand fundamental fairness and we understand that there have to be rules of the game.
	So, I'm talking with my good friend John Bachman.
	Follow him now at John F. Bachman.
	He does not yet have a blue check.
	I don't know why.
	Hey, Jack, I know you're listening.
	You should give John Bachman a blue check.
	He's also the host of John Bachman Now from 12 to 2 p.m.
	Eastern, Monday through Friday.
	John, you were talking in the break about You know, one of the sports analogies that I always love, you know, in baseball, when we're talking about the rules of the game, and we all understand that we can compete our hearts out, but at the end of the day, the rules of the game have to prevail, and the umpires should not be picking winners or losers.
	They should be enforcing the rules, and that's what we expect from an independent judiciary.
	We're not quite there, and I think that's what's really frustrating a lot of Americans.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	You know, you're never supposed to really talk about the officiating at a sporting event.
	When you are, things usually aren't going well.
	They make a bad call.
	That's usually the only time you mention the umpire's name at a baseball game.
	Growing up, when I was playing baseball, I played catcher, and I played catcher at high school level, and summer travel ball and things like that.
	You know, when you're playing catcher, you always have to work the umpire in the game.
	Every umpire has a strike zone that's a little bit different than the other one.
	And, you know, you always have to relay that information to the pitcher.
	It all affects how you call the game.
	And so I always like to, you know, have a relationship with the umpire where I don't, you know, necessarily care if I like him or not.
	We don't have to be friends.
	But I need to know if he's consistent, if he's going to call a certain pitch a certain way, and if he's going to be fair.
	And that's what mattered to me most.
	And it's the same thing, it's the same theory I apply to the people I have on my show.
	You know, are they fair?
	Are they honest?
	And, you know, are they intellectually honest?
	And are they consistent?
	So, you know, that's why I have you on the show, Jenna.
	And as it relates to the media, I went to journalism school at the University of Georgia, and what's amazing to me, granted I work in, obviously I have a perspective, I apply journalism to what I do, but I am open about my conservative perspective.
	You know, every single day with NBC News, the traditional platform that are supposed to be, you know, NBC News is a broadcast network.
	It relies on the public airwaves to disseminate their message.
	But, you know, they had a story yesterday about Donald Trump's 20-20 feet election defeat in the wake of it.
	Many QAnon followers have hatched a plan, run for the school board.
	I mean, they attach these labels like QAnon onto everyday Americans who simply might support Donald Trump or are new to the political process, or maybe not as, I guess, educated in the world of politics.
	And I don't mean that in terms of street smarts or book smarts, I just mean how Washington works, quote unquote, as they like to say, the swampy ways.
	And they just continue to talk down to them It is amazing to see the disrespect and the condescension to middle Americans in flyover country, and they continue to do it.
	And Jenna, we have this ongoing list of the stories that they have told us that were disinformation from Hunter's laptop, the Russian collusion, the two impeachments that went nowhere.
	All these stories that have been debunked over and over again.
	And this is why, John, they don't.
	And this type of misinformation, I was glad to see Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, and we actually talked about this on your Newsmax show the other day, about how they dissented in the Supreme Court declining a libel case that might have re-evaluated the standard of New York Times v. Sullivan, that 1964 case.
	That really set the bar very high for defamation against a public figure.
	And they said, you know, we may need to reevaluate this because of the consistent misinformation that is so prolific now across not just social media, but also the mainstream media, these legacy media.
	And that is not fair.
	I mean, we can all have our opinions.
	But opinion is very different from fact.
	And what I can't stand, John, about so many of these legacy media is they will put out something that may technically be a fact, but they will characterize it in a way that it's a half truth.
	And it's they're wanting to lead you in a direction that is so false.
	And President Trump, one of the greatest things that he did throughout his administration was call the fake news media for what they are.
	They're activists.
	They're not journalists.
	They're not reporters.
	And let's play cut four.
	I was informed that there are record numbers of murders took place this weekend.
	Record numbers.
	They don't even talk about it on...
	NBC and CBS and ABC and NPR, they don't talk about it.
	And it's a big, it's a big story.
	That's why the credibility of the mainstream media is the lowest it's ever been.
	Lowest it's ever been.
	And, you know, I hate to take credit for this, but I'm very proud of the fact that I expose them for what they are.
	They are terrible, terrible representatives of our country.
	We love giving him credit for that, John.
	Don't we?
	Yeah, we do.
	And you know, the other thing, too, what you're saying about the Supreme Court case, I was really bummed that they didn't take it up because it would have given me an opportunity on my show to play B-roll from the movie War Dogs.
	And if nobody's seen it, it is a great movie to watch.
	But that Supreme Court case involved a book of which that movie was based on.
	And you're right.
	Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said the court should have taken up the case because in that book,
	The former Prime Minister of Albania had sued the author of the book, which is called Arms and Dudes, Three Stoners from Miami Beach Became the Most Unlikely Gun Runners in History, that's the name of the book, but he sued them because there was a portrayal of this Prime Minister that he was, like, corrupt, and the portrayal of the Prime Minister in the book and the movie became part of the story in the mainstream media, and the Prime Minister really wasn't portrayed fairly, and what the lower courts basically said was that
	Because he was a public figure in Albania, the Prime Minister, he had a higher standard to prove that he wasn't corrupt.
	Isn't that insane?
	I know!
	That's what Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said.
	Public figures traditionally have had an opportunity that other people haven't where they've had, you know, they can go on TV or radio.
	But the media is so saturated now that those lies can get picked up and spread around the world.
	So, you know, that's amazing, John.
	Yeah.
	And it's amazing what I have what I have read and learned about myself on the Internet that I never knew, because, you know, that's that's what all of this prolific stuff.
	That people just put out there and then other people read about public figures and they just assume it's true.
	And it's insane.
	And I think you're absolutely right that this needs to be revisited.
	This whole actual malice standard may be a bit too high for our disinformation, misinformation age.
	And John F. Bachman, follow him now on Twitter.
	He is the host of John Bachman Now on Newsmax from 12 to 2 Eastern.
	We will be right back here on America First.
	I'm Jenna Ellis.
	True.
	Hello, Mr. Bakari, can you hear us?
	Hello, yes I can.
	Can you hear me?
	Yes, we can hear you and just letting you know that the mics are live on our Rumble broadcast.
	We're in the breaks right now.
	We'll be coming back on radio in just under three minutes here.
	So I'll go ahead and put on the split screen view so you guys can see each other.
	There we go.
	Yes.
	Hello, my friend, and I just saw you on Newsmax, but I can't actually see you where I am, but I will trust the tech powers that be in America First that we're on the split screen.
	How are you?
	It's all working.
	I'm good, yeah.
	Eric never lies, so that's good.
	He never gives us disinformation.
	Good, good.
	So we'll have two segments here, a six and an eight.
	And, you know, I love actually what you had to say about big tech and all the investigative stuff that you've done with Breitbart.
	So we'll just get into that.
	I've been focusing on that and the lawsuit from President Trump this whole time.
	Actually, I guess for the last two and a half hours.
	So it's been a really good conversation.
	Gotcha.
	Looking forward to it.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	And Bukhari is how you pronounce your last name, correct?
	Yeah, you got it.
	Perfect.
	All right.
	And I'm now following you on Twitter, by the way.
	I should have been.
	My apologies for that.
	But I am now in the zone on Twitter.
	So.
	Awesome.
	Good to hear you.
	I think I'm following you too.
	OK.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	So that's good.
	Yes.
	That Twitter handle is very, very inaccurate.
	I need to get it changed.
	You need to update it?
	OK.
	Good to know.
	I was wondering.
	I'm like, hmm.
	OK.
	Yeah.
	It needs to be more like, you know, America first.
	90 seconds to air.
	Over 2,200 people watching on Rumble.
	How are you guys doing today?
	Hey.
	Hi, Rumble.
	Woo-hoo!
	We are not being censored on that platform.
	That's awesome.
	Big crowd.
	Yes.
	Well, and great topic.
	I mean, it's a really important one.
	And I loved Trump's big tech op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today.
	So, you know, of course he wrote that.
	But, uh, through these lawsuits, I intend to restore free speech for all Americans, Democrats, Republicans, and independents.
	I will never stop fighting to defend the constitutional rights and sacred liberties of the American people.
	Awesome.
	Wonderful.
	Any cuts this segment, Jenna, or are you thinking?
	I think we're good.
	Yeah.
	Because, yeah.
	All right.
	Sounds good then.
	Don't want to take away any time from my good friend at Libertarian Blue.
	No worries.
	All right.
	And 30 seconds.
	30 seconds.
	Thanks.
	Remember, this is six minutes long, this segment.
	This is six minutes long, this segment.
	This is six minutes long, this segment.
	Constitution, America First!
	Welcome to America First!
	I'm Jenna Ellis.
	Thanks so much for sticking with us for the three hours today.
	I'm filling in for my good friend Sebastian Gorka, who is also on the board with me of the Election Integrity Alliance.
	Go and follow us.
	Sign up for all of the news alerts about what our allies are doing to protect election integrity across the country.
	And you can go to AmericanGreatnessFund.com.
	That's AmericanGreatnessFund.com.
	Follow us on social media before we get canceled.
	I'm at JennaLSESQ, but my next guest, even more importantly, is at Libertarian Blue.
	He tells me that he might have to change that handle, but we were actually on a Newsmax segment together just a couple of days ago talking about Big Tech, talking about this lawsuit, and I had to bring him on so that you could hear what he has to say because I found it a really fascinating perspective.
	So, Alam Bakari, thank you so much for joining me today.
	You are investigating Big Tech for Breitbart News.
	Anna, what is your perspective from the Big Tech world about this particular issue and moving forward from conservative values in the marketplace?
	Yeah, I mean this issue has been going on for a long time.
	I've been covering it since its early beginnings in 2015 when tech censorship was just getting started and when Twitter and Facebook and YouTube still claimed to be open platforms that supported free expression.
	And it just it's accelerated so much in the years since Trump was elected in 2016.
	And, you know, they went after his supporters first and then eventually they went after him.
	And it's a real shame that Republicans didn't take their opportunity when they had control of the White House and control of the Senate and the House to fix this problem, to fix some of the laws that allow it to happen.
	And it's important to remember that these companies owe their position in the marketplace and their vast powers to censor people to laws that Congress passed in the 1990s.
	Yeah, and I find that fascinating.
	What's your perspective on why Republicans didn't do that?
	I mean, I think a lot of us are not, I'm certainly not a fan of Paul Ryan.
	I think he handled that very terribly as a speaker, and that was one of the worst things that he did in terms of Not advancing true America First policies that are championing conservative values.
	He was actually one of those, the wrenches in the system when they had that opportunity.
	But was it just because, in your opinion, you know, that Republicans just didn't see it as as much of a threat as it is now?
	Or did they actively just not want to do anything?
	I think they certainly underestimated the threat.
	It's also a very complicated issue and without naming names, many, many people in Congress are completely clueless when it comes to all aspects of technology and rely heavily on their staffers for any level of technological expertise.
	I will say, Republicans have had an aversion to using the power of the state and using the power of laws in a smart way.
	They've had this laissez-faire, free-market attitude to everything long after all of corporate America has turned against them and gone left-wing and gone woke and censored them.
	Increasingly, we're seeing Republicans start to realize that, but they didn't realize that back in 2016 and 2017.
	I need to update my Twitter handle probably for that reason.
	I haven't been a libertarian for many, many years.
	Yeah, and I find that fascinating as well.
	Some of this, as you said, you know, the laissez-faire sort of stuff that is contrasted against and that philosophy that's contrasted against conservatism and making sure that, you know, that conservatives do recognize that one of the tools that we have at our disposal that we've been talking about through the last couple of hours is that conservatives do recognize that one of the tools that we have at our disposal that we've been talking about through the last couple of hours is that litigation can actually clarify the And so this is a really fascinating issue.
	And, you know, one of the things that you mentioned as well, Ilama, is that so many of our, you know, perhaps, you know, older, different generation congressmen and women and Congress members don't use social media as much as.
	And I wonder if that, not just hesitation, but frankly, ignorance of big tech will also be reflected in the judiciary.
	Because, I mean, I've clerked for judges who, you know, refuse to even get online for some of their cases.
	They had to use paper files because that's the traditional method.
	And so do you think that we're going to see that attitude reflected in the judiciary?
	That'll be interesting to see.
	I mean, there have been censorship cases that have come before the courts before, and they've always been shot down on either First Amendment grounds, because, you know, the tech companies argue that they have First Amendment rights as corporations to, you know, carry whatever views or censor whatever views they want, or on the grounds of Section 230, which is that 1990s law that gives them, you know, these wide legal liability shields for both hosting content and for taking it down.
	Now, the Trump case is interesting because it argues that Twitter and Facebook colluded with the state because they were taking advice on censorship from the CDC.
	And we'll pause there for a moment.
	We'll pause for a moment.
	We'll be right back with my good friend at Libertarian Blue when we come right back on America First.
	music I have to make fun of your handle now, you know.
	Of course, we're memeing it.
	Yeah, thanks.
	And I have to say, so for all of the Rumble listeners out there that are still with us in this break, so I was going to get also Andrew Clavin on, but of course he hosts his Daily Wire show on Fridays.
	But I want to get him on soon to talk about, because he's a libertarian and we have this, I mean, this has been a years-long conversation about the difference between libertarianism and conservatism, and, you know, I've moved the needle a little bit, I think, but, you know, that's an ongoing interesting conversation.
	Yeah, I mean, the way I see it on the tech front is, you know, even if you're a libertarian, these companies owe their position to laws that Congress passed, so it's not really a free market issue.
	It's about changing the laws that already exist.
	So in a sense, they're almost creations of congressional policy.
	Right.
	Right.
	Which is, I mean, that goes against this whole notion that we shouldn't litigate because the government should never insert themselves into the free marketplace.
	Well, they've already done that through the law, essentially.
	So that's really interesting.
	Well, you know, this is going to be our last segment together.
	So I think, you know, what might be helpful is kind of your perspective on big tech, of where the law should go from here.
	And kind of giving people, you know, a better overview of, you know, why this is so important and timely now.
	Yeah, I'll step back and look at the bigger issue a little bit.
	Yeah.
	And this is fascinating.
	And also, you know, by the way, now that I follow you on Twitter, so we can DM and all that, you know, send me any of your stuff from Breitbart so I can read it and also amplify it because, you know, this is really important and I really appreciate your expertise and perspectives.
	Yeah, happy to do so, and thanks for having me on.
	It's always good to talk about this because the issue keeps getting more important, it seems.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And President Trump is certainly not going to be giving up anytime soon, which I love that about him.
	I mean, people, you know, in the aftermath of the 2020 election, all that, they're like, yeah, well, you know, we won't have to talk about him anymore.
	I'm like, are you kidding me?
	Like, clearly you haven't met him because he's not going anywhere.
	So he's great.
	It is a shame like his administration didn't do anything on this because, you know, the White House, the administration can take independent action on tech and they didn't.
	They tried to in the last months but didn't go anywhere.
	Yeah.
	And, you know, I was not a fan of AG Barr and I think how much he's rightly kind of going after Barr is right.
	You know, I mean, it's frustrating that, I mean, we elected him, not his administration.
	And so, you know, their ideas of how things should go, they can advise, but he's ultimately the decision maker.
	And to see some of that, you know, even from my perspective of, you know, as his personal counsel and then on the campaign side, but seeing what was going on, it's just, It was disgusting how much his own team didn't fight for what he was fighting for, and that sickened me and still does.
	Yeah, I mean the machinery of government was opposed to him from the start, but for the political appointments there's really no excuse.
	Absolutely.
	Exactly.
	And I think, you know, if he gets another term in 2024, hopefully that's what will change and, you know, he'll come in and not care what anybody says and just clean house with all the political appointments.
	30?
	Yeah.
	Personnel is policy.
	He needs to rehire Johnny McEntee if he wins.
	Johnny McEntee really turned things around at the PPO.
	Yes.
	100%.
	Great guy.
	15 seconds.
	Standby.
	Your cues are going to be America first.
	Thanks.
	Copy that.
	News and talk radio is still really popular, even in the Internet age.
	What you are about to hear them say is mind-boggling.
	Here's looking at you, Snowflake.
	America first.
	Welcome back to America First.
	I'm Jenna Ellis, sitting in for my good friend Sebastian Gorka, Dr. Sebastian Gorka.
	And my guest, we are talking about big tech censorship and Alam Bakhari, who is investigating big tech for Breitbart News.
	You can follow him at Libertarian Blue until he updates that handle, but follow him now so that you know where to find him.
	And alum, you know, we were talking in the break about kind of bringing this back to a more overview perspective of where are we headed now with all of the big tech censorship.
	Obviously, Americans in our gut, how we are raised, how we understand America first principles, our fundamental fairness.
	the opportunity to have freedom of speech, to exercise our rights.
	And so as this becomes a bigger and bigger issue, where do you see this heading and how can American patriots get involved in the fight to protect our First Amendment freedoms?
	Well, there's a lot of focus on the political side of things, which is, you know, how tech censorship affects politics.
	And this is a subject increasingly of international concern.
	After Donald Trump was banned on all of those platforms back in January, you saw the president of Mexico, politicians in Australia, Germany, France, the UK, all expressing great concern about this, even if they didn't share Trump's politics, because they recognize the level of political interference that is when tech companies de-platform a world leader like that.
	But I also want to get to the fundamental fairness question, because That isn't discussed enough because there's so much focus on the political.
	But these platforms have been around in some cases for half a decade or even an entire decade.
	So some people have spent, you know, An entire decade of their lives building up their presence on these platforms is an important part of their lives, their social lives, their livelihoods.
	Some people base their entire business around their presence on Facebook or YouTube or Instagram.
	So for people like that to be in a position where the tech companies are going to take it all away instantly and they have no due process, that's a basic question of fairness that goes beyond any partisan political considerations in my view.
	Absolutely, and I think that the law does and should reflect that in this arena because when you're talking about any sort of other business enterprise, when you're talking about even landlord-tenant law, when you're talking about protections in the marketplace and protecting The little guy and the entrepreneur and the individual and all of those different protections in any other arena that should mirror also these types of platforms.
	And it's been interesting to me from a legal perspective to see that big tech on one hand claims that they are not a public utility in that sense, but then they're also claiming that they're not the arbiters of truth and that we're not just out there Willy-nilly, arbitrarily silencing and suppressing speech.
	But the average American, you don't have to be a lawyer, you don't have to be an expert in big tech, you don't even have to be on social media to know that that's happening.
	And that's what is frustrating, I think, to all of us.
	If Twitter right now banned Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, I would be against that because do I agree with what Joe Biden says?
	No.
	99% of the time, probably, but I want to hear from him.
	I want to know what he's saying.
	And so to have this sort of viewpoint discrimination that is so clearly against conservatives in one particular viewpoint on any given issue, whether you're talking about COVID, whether you're talking about You know, conservative principals, President Trump, or what have you, when you see that that is not fair, then that's where I wish that the liberals would step in and say, wait a minute, like these other foreign leaders, we might be next.
	Yeah, and it also creates a massive chilling effect because even the people who still, you know, the conservatives and the right wingers who still have their social media accounts, you know, they're dropping like flies.
	I mean, Nick Fuentes was banned just today on Twitter, I think.
	Yes.
	But even the ones who still have their accounts.
	There are probably things they feel they can't say, or they reduce the number of posts they make on a given day because they're worried about getting banned.
	And the left doesn't experience that.
	They can say almost anything they want.
	A recent example last week, there was a director of a civil rights organization in British Columbia, Canada, who tweeted, quote-unquote, burn it all down.
	In response to a story about an epidemic of church arson attacks in Canada.
	And she still has a Twitter account.
	So this just shows you like, you know, the leftist doesn't experience this level of censorship and they also don't experience the chilling effect.
	You know, someone on the left feels they can tweet out essentially a glorification of arson and, you know, they won't be at risk of censorship.
	Right.
	And yet, you know, if we just tweet out something like, you know, hey, look, I have a Lego set of the U.S.
	Capitol, then, you know, oh, no, you're an insurrectionist.
	The FBI is going to be knocking at your door.
	I mean, that type of hypocrisy, but also that type of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of these rules is so Obviously biased.
	And that's what's really frustrating.
	I find it interesting, you know, when I was talking to some of the attorneys earlier on in this program, they're not really attacking the terms and conditions and that sort of discriminatory enforcement as much as they are just the overall civil rights issue at play.
	But I think it's interesting to look at How these terms and conditions, I mean, I don't read them.
	I mean, there was a, I don't, disclaimer, I don't watch South Park, but I know about, I'm from, I'm from Colorado and I know about the show.
	But, um, you know, there was a great South Park episode about the terms and conditions.
	Everybody just scrolls down to the bottom, they click accept, and you have no idea what you're signing.
	And yet that gives big tech the ability to then just say, oh, well, this is against our standards.
	Nobody knows what that means.
	Isn't that something though that we should be fighting?
	I think it should be.
	I like that you brought up landlords and tenants earlier.
	That's an example that I've used in the past as well because, you know, you could be, you know, renting a crappy $800 a month studio in the worst part of town and you'll have more rights than you do over an Instagram account with a million followers, a Facebook account with a million followers that might be bringing in, you know, tens of thousands in revenue a month.
	And, you know, that's an insane position for business owners to be in and, you know, ordinary citizens to be in.
	And, you know, this also goes to, you know, the question of asymmetric power in America.
	The left has its claws in every single major power center in the country, whether that's the federal government, the judiciary, and now corporate America as well, the most powerful corporations of which are, of course, the tech giants.
	And as long as that persists, the double standards will persist.
	Yes, and so this is such a multifaceted issue, and Alam Bakhari, I really appreciate your analysis, and you'll have to join me on my show on Real America's Voice, Just the Truth.
	Soon, that's every weeknight at 6 p.m.
	Eastern, but follow Alam Bakhari right now at Libertarian Blue on Twitter.
	Also, all of his writings on Breitbart News, and join me for the last segment already here on America First.
	I'm Jenna Ellis.
	We'll be right back.
	All right.
	Clear.
	We are clear.
	The mic's live on Rumble once again.
	All right.
	Thank you, my friend.
	And for Rumble, I'm sorry.
	Yes.
	And I forgot to mention your book.
	So I'm so sorry.
	It's Hashtag Deleted.
	Big Tech's battle to erase the Trump movement and steal the election.
	But I will push it out on my social media.
	So thank you so much.
	And I'll be in touch soon.
	So thanks.
	Thanks a lot.
	Great to be on.
	Bye.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	Mute him again.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
	Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
	To be continued...
	��
	��
	�� Yeah.
	Welcome back to America First.
	I'm Jenna Ellis.
	It has been such a privilege to be with you for this three hours and, you know, maybe I just won't let Seb come back.
	He's supposed to be back Monday, but who knows?
	Maybe you'll just get me and we'll be like, hey, stay on vacation, my friend.
	No, we love Seb around here and I really appreciate it.
	Also, forgot to mention, so I want to make sure that you know that my friend Alam Bakari, who was with me the last two segments, he has a great book called Hashtag Deleted, Big Tech's Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal the Election.
	Go find that wherever books are sold.
	And, you know, continue to speak up, my friends.
	We have to make sure that we are bold, that we are courageous, and that we just stand firm in the truth.
	That's what I try to do each and every day, and you all know that I am a conservative Christian and that I'm a Christian first, and that means that every day I wake up and say, what does God have for me today?
	And it doesn't matter what anyone else says, the lies that they spread, the hate that they spread, the tweets that they respond to, I don't care.
	Why?
	Because I serve my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and that is ultimately what matters, and because of that, I also am proud to be an American because I am so privileged to live in this great country where for the first time in world history our founders recognized the truth of the Word of God and that God himself endows us with our rights and because of that
	We have the ability to speak together about truth and to discuss all of these things and to understand what it means to be a Christian in the 21st century, what it means to understand how to raise our families, how to participate in the free marketplace of ideas.
	We all have to answer.
	At the end of the day, we all have to answer the question, who do we say that Jesus is?
	That is the most important question, and if we aren't able to have the conversation and to debate and discuss all of these things, then that ultimately is foreclosing our ability to be the best informed about truth and about the things of God, and to raise our children according to truth, and to participate in our businesses in the free marketplace according to truth.
	And that's why religious liberty is so important that the government isn't compelling you or me to participate in a Christian church or go to a Muslim mosque.
	No, we get to decide and answer for ourselves.
	Who do we say that Jesus Christ is?
	Do you believe that he is your Lord and Savior?
	And the government is not going to compel you to answer that question a certain way.
	Neither is God himself.
	It is your choice, and that choice is all about what religious liberty is about.
	And so make sure that you are speaking up in the marketplace, that you are in your Bible every day, that you are reading the truth for yourself, and to help you discern all of these things, Join me on my show on Real America's Voice.
	It's called Just the Truth, where we talk about all these things.
	Follow me at Jenna Ellis, ESQ.
	Join the Election Integrity Alliance, AmericanGreatnessFund.com.
	But definitely, definitely, definitely stay frosty.
	I'm Jenna Ellis.
	It was great to be with you here on America First.

▲