Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 19, 2024 - Just Informed Talk - Craig James

01:30:49

SCOTUS Case Exposes Communist FEDs Forcing Big Tech Censorship To Remove First Amendment!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	No!
	No!
	No! No! No! No!
	Visit their website or call 800-951-0592 for the best deals on high quality physical gold and silver right now.
	Good morning and welcome to another Just Form Talk radio show.
	I'm your host, Craig James.
	Today I'm flying solo.
	My good friend and co-host Nick Ngo is taking some well-earned time off, so let's let him enjoy himself while we get back into the news.
	That's exactly what we're going to be doing here today.
	I hope you guys are having a wonderful day though.
	It's always a beautiful morning when I can get up with my fellow Patriots and go through the news and cover all of the information that you need to hear about.
	So, if you're listening live on the front range of the Colorado Rockies on 1360 AM, KHNC, from Colorado up into Wyoming and over Nebraska, Welcome, if you're listening to the live stream on YouTube, Rumble, or Twitter slash X, welcome as well.
	We have a lot to cover here today, and I hope you guys are ready, but if you want to get involved, there's a few ways you can do it.
	The simple way you can get involved here, live, on air, is just by simply texting or calling the number 877-536-1360.
	That's 877-536-1360.
	877-536-1360.
	That's 877-536-1360.
	Make sure you do that if you want to contribute.
	Thoughts, comments, questions, concerns, prayers.
	You want to tell me how great the show is, whatever it is.
	You can do that, and I appreciate it.
	I really do mean that when I say it means a lot to me.
	Also, if you're listening on the live stream, Rumble, YouTube, X, Twitter, make sure you leave your thoughts in the live chat, which is basically where I go to hear.
	Hear your thoughts and everything that you guys are going through, so make sure you do that as well.
	Like, share, subscribe if you're on those platforms.
	Please, that helps out big time.
	But, we have a lot of information to unpack here today and I hope you guys are ready.
	Now, one of the bigger stories that I want to get into here today, well, we're going to get into a few stories.
	We're going to cover what's been happening with Trump.
	More updates on his case.
	Of course, it seems that the court is coming after him with everything it has.
	It's obviously election interference.
	At this point, I think we all can agree that they're trying to rig the 2024 election by persecuting Donald Trump using lawfare.
	So the justice system has been weaponized.
	They have essentially undermined the full faith and credit that we the people had in the justice system.
	So that's definitely going to have some lasting impacts.
	But of course they don't care because their entire existence is on the line.
	I mean, ultimately, that's what it comes down to.
	If they were to be caught and found out for the crimes that they've committed thus far, I don't think anything could save them.
	And not any of their corporate propagandists in the media, not any of their lies and deception and censorship tactics with big tech and social media, none of it.
	It wouldn't work.
	And one of the things I think they're most afraid of us finding out, to be quite honest, is this idea of these secret pardons that exist now I don't think that a lot of people really fully grasp the level of corruption and criminality that you're able to get away with if you are able to get one of your
	let's say minions or henchmen into the office of the president of the United States, because with that office comes the legal authority to pardon people for crimes.
	Now, of course, there are certain exceptions to that rule where you can't pardon for certain crimes.
	But overall, if you wanted to, you know, run a criminal syndicate, your your objective or goal would be to get your man in the White House.
	And I think a lot of this all started back in the 1960s with Lyndon B. Johnson and when they turned around and assassinated JFK.
	That is kind of where this all started.
	And because presidents from JFK and before him from the time of JFK and before him, were warning us of these secret societies that were amassing huge amounts of power within our government and how dangerous that was.
	And they were leveraging that power into secret cabals that could be weaponized against the American people eventually.
	And that's exactly where we're at some, what, 60 years later.
	That's exactly the situation we find ourselves in, where these out-of-control government bureaucracies that have been infiltrated by members of these secret organizations, they've completely become lawless.
	They have a complete and utter disdain and disregard the law.
	So they have disdain for the American people and they disregard the law.
	And I see the writing on the wall.
	I'm sure you see the writing on the wall as well.
	It's not something that I, you know, get up every morning and Just go crazy worrying about because a lot of things are out of my control, but just a common observation is that that's what we're facing, right?
	And when you look at what's happening with Donald Trump, I think that what you have to really start looking at, you know, when you have judges, when you have prosecutors, when you have, you know, DA's and you have attorney generals, you know, you've got to really start asking yourself, What groups are they enjoined with behind closed doors?
	Because you talk about this idea of conspiracy theoricism, or whatever that phrase would be, and it's always used as a pejorative to kind of dismiss and discount information that may be relevant to understanding the context of what's happening.
	And I think in this particular case, You don't have, you know, four different jurisdictions come together with 91 felony counts on all of these types of bogus charges and novel legal theories without some sort of coordination.
	So then you have to ask, well, where is that coordination coming from?
	And it can't just all be, well, George Soros, you know, contributed to this person's campaign and that's why it's happening.
	There has to be something even deeper there and I think that's what most people will never be able to identify clearly because of course secrecy in and of its nature is something that we cannot No, unless we find that knowledge and expose it.
	So when I look around at what's happening to Donald Trump, I immediately understand that there is a broad conspiracy that is being leveraged against him.
	And I think a lot of people feel like they're untouchable because perhaps they've already committed crimes and been pardoned or they've been enjoined, like I've said, with these secret societies behind closed doors and they are taking orders on what to do.
	And.
	Again, one thing that we've been able to realize more than anything else during this whole fiasco with Donald Trump is that the system is in fact rigged.
	We knew that for, we've known that for a long time I think, but it's become flagrant and apparent and they have no, they have no shame, right?
	They've gone Completely insane, and they are waging a full-on political war against Donald J. Trump and the American people that he wants to represent.
	There is a very large portion of the population, I would argue the majority of the population, who see clearly now what is happening yet.
	We have a lot more work to do, and I think that's exactly what we're going to be talking about here coming up.
	We have this U.S.
	Supreme Court case that just hit the, uh, they just started hearing it, and we have some interesting things coming from it, and this is all about censorship, because they don't want us talking about their secret clubs, right?
	So they gotta censor it.
	Stay tuned, we'll be back after the break.
	Welcome back to Justformed Talk Radio.
	I'm your host, Craig James, and we are talking about what's happening with this Supreme Court case that was just, they just started hearing the arguments for yesterday.
	This is a case that's very big.
	It is the Murphy v. Missouri case, and this is essentially a case about censorship, and I think Rand Paul summarized it very well.
	When he said in a tweet yesterday today, SCOTUS heard Murthy v. Missouri, the most consequential free speech case in U.S.
	history.
	This isn't just about social media companies.
	It's a critical examination of government overreach.
	The Biden administration and FBI's efforts to influence big tech into silencing dissent tramples on the First Amendment.
	Our focus must be on preventing government censorship, not compelling private entities to act as censors.
	This case could redefine our free speech as we know it.
	And I'll tell you what, you know, I've been the victim of this censorship regime, personally.
	I've lost an entire career overnight from it.
	I had a very successful and popular YouTube channel, which had around 300,000 subscribers and tens of millions of views, almost over 50 million, over 60 million views, just in two years.
	And it was growing and doing well until the censorship started.
	You know, there was a time in this existence in which we are, that the algorithms at YouTube actually promoted content based on what people wanted to see, not what was being curated for them to see.
	And of course they couldn't have that so they had to artificially tamper with these algorithms and then change them so that they suppress content that they deemed conspiratorial or problematic, right?
	And I remember thinking to myself as that slow progression started happening that This was going to end in a very dark place and I think we're finally coming to that culmination where there's going to be a decision, and this isn't the final decision, this isn't going to make or break everything, but there's going to be a decision that's made here that's going to really affect the future of free speech in America.
	It's overwhelmingly clear at this point that the power structure that exists has no intention of allowing us to speak freely.
	They don't want us to talk about their secret club.
	They don't want us to talk about who they are working with clandestinely behind the scenes.
	They don't want us to talk about the truth about these wars that they tell us are good for us.
	You know, it's always interesting to me how they continually convince us that, you know, there's an existential threat facing our nation.
	And if we don't bomb this country, if we don't attack these people, if we don't imprison these dissidents, then the existential threat will win.
	You could pretty much put anything in there.
	For me, in my lifetime, that I existed in, given that I'm not young, but I'm not old, It kind of started in 9-11 with the existential threat of the terrorists.
	We have to stop the terrorists.
	You're like, okay, fine.
	Like, there's some guys in the Middle East who are, you know, blowing up buildings.
	That's not good.
	Like, let's try to stop that.
	And they sold us on it the whole lie of 9-11, which, you know, look, if you still believe that 9-11 was conducted by some outside extremists from some caves in Afghanistan or some, you know, places in Saudi Arabia, here's the thing.
	It's just not true.
	And I hate to burst your bubble, but if you look at the evidence, The evidence is so overwhelming at this point and clear that we relied to that I don't know what else I can do.
	You watch buildings fall into their own footprint in a free fall collapse that is an obvious demolition and they tell us that jetliners did it.
	And then another building, completely unscathed and untouched, the first building in the history of modern, you know, mankind to collapse in free fall into its own footprint from a fire, quote-unquote.
	An uncontrolled fire, that's World Trade Center Tower 7.
	And they still want you to believe that's the official story.
	And I'm talking about it because, like, that's the type of censorship we're facing, right?
	To me, it just blows my mind how we've come here.
	Because if you believe that, then you'll believe anything.
	Uri Bestman put it very well when he explained how the Communists wanted to infiltrate our country and what their intention were.
	How they were going to do it, what tactics they were going to use.
	They'll have you so indoctrinated, and so propagandized, and so heavily guarded by your own cognitive dissonance, that they can march you to the concentration camp, put you up against the fence, show you people being murdered in mass, and you would still turn around and say, I don't believe it, I don't believe what you're saying.
	He made a good point that it was not until, I think the way he phrased it, it was not until the boot crashes your backside that you would wake up and realize what's happening.
	So, I have been working very hard to try to get information to people so that we don't have to have the boot crash our backside, metaphorically speaking.
	Or literally, I'm sure, in some case.
	But it doesn't seem to be working, and it's not because I think we are failing, it's because the systems that we are going up against are advancing quicker than we can really adapt.
	And that's not to say that we can't overcome it, it's to say that what I've noticed lately with the augmentation of this censorship with artificial intelligence is that The systems are becoming almost impossible to decipher, to see clearly, to decipher what it is.
	You may be online and completely unaware that your entire, like, let's say, I'll be fair, conservatively, 75% of your online experience is curated, censored, and artificial.
	Meaning you're not even having interactions with real people.
	You're having interactions with very highly complex botnets that are ran by AI systems that can have entire conversations, that can steer narratives, that can amplify certain information while, you know, Pushing down other information to shape a view which then makes you incapable of deciphering the truth.
	And really, that's what they want, right?
	At the end of the day, I would imagine that their end goal is to have you in a state of confusion so that you're not able to see the truth for what it truly is.
	And this harkens back to a clip I played in yesterday's show which talked about this idea That they will, with the advent of artificial intelligence deepfakes, right, these videos and audio clips that are going to be nearly indecipherable from, or indistinguishable, excuse me, from reality,
	That this will create a nihilistic response in the population, meaning they will just stop believing everything.
	They will stop believing in anything at all, because if it's online, then it's probably fake.
	And that is... that's what they want, believe it or not.
	I mean, it is exactly what they want.
	That is the end goal.
	The end goal is to have you in a state of confusion, And paranoia and distrust so that you don't even trust your eyes and your ears.
	And they're going to get there.
	I hate to say it.
	I'm not saying that to be negative or pessimistic, but they will get there.
	That is where we're headed.
	That is the trajectory.
	I mean, a lot of people have commented over the years, people like Alex Jones and David Icke and a bunch of other people, Who have, you know, seem to be prophetic in the way that they can look into the events of today and predict the events of tomorrow.
	But it really is not that difficult if you understand the trajectory and you understand, you know, what their end goal is.
	If you see the end goal and you see the trajectory, then you can predict tomorrow's events easily.
	So what's going to happen, and it may or may not happen within the time frame of this election cycle, but what will end up happening is they will create very convincing deepfakes and they will intermix them in and amongst information that is real and true so that you can't Possibly have a chance at seeing what is true and what is not true.
	I would almost venture a guess to say...
	And this is me just hypothesizing, but that in the future, they would have artificial intelligence to a point where they could convince future generations that 9-11 was real because the information that we were looking at after 9-11 was somehow doctored by artificial intelligence.
	Meaning they'll be like, well, Yes, the buildings fell in freefall collapse, but are we sure that that's even the legitimate and real footage of the events that took place that day?
	Are we sure that that's not AI?
	Are we sure that's not deepfake?
	The explosions popping out of the side of the building?
	Are we sure that, you know, the World Trade Center Tower or World Trade Center Tower 7 was, you know, not falling in or was falling in free fall?
	And I say that because that is, of course, like I said, the end goals.
	So, I do, however, we had a text messenger, somebody sent a text message from the 505 saying, if POTUS isn't legit, neither are the pardons.
	I mean, I agree, except if it doesn't matter if POTUS is legit or not, if the entire system is rigged to Reinforce the idea that his power is legitimate.
	And again, I've talked about this on the show before.
	This is going back to the idea of national security and the idea that there are certain things that they do not want you to be able to see clearly because obviously they know that if our enemies
	If you tell your enemy, I am corrupt, I am infiltrated, I am completely owned by foreign governments and foreign actors and bad actors within our bureaucracy, then all that does is make us more weak.
	So this is why they all continually, you know, they all go shake Biden's hand and Mike Johnson walks him through Congress and says, yes, Mr. President, we know he's not a legitimate president, We all know that.
	We all know he didn't win in 2020.
	We all know they rigged it.
	It couldn't be more clear.
	Just like we know 9-11 didn't happen from Osama Bin Laden launching terrorists out of caves in Afghanistan.
	Just like we know JFK wasn't killed by some lone gunman deranged lunatic with a vengeance for him.
	Just like we know every other official, just like we know Golf of Tonkin was a false flag, just like we know that everything that they've tried to convince us of is not necessarily as it seems.
	I'm not saying that everything is not true, because there is a lot of truth within all of those things, but ultimately that is What I see coming down the pipeline.
	So, I do want to talk a little bit more about this case.
	We have some clips from it, which I want to share.
	The big one that came out of yesterday's hearing was the idea that one of the justices came out and said that the First Amendment is what they say they said uh... the first amendment is hamstring the government says content contagious jackson browne Oh, really?
	Well, I guess, wouldn't that be the idea of the First Amendment, is to keep a tyrannical government from dictating what we can and can't say?
	But of course, when you have literal Marxist-Communists, uh, radical racist lunatics sitting on the Supreme Court, they're gonna say things like that, which, uh, it's almost unbelievable, but...
	You know, go have a conversation with some of these people.
	I mean, they've checked out.
	They're not home.
	They're off the reservation.
	They're in La La Land.
	They're living in a fantasy and a delusion.
	Now, I like to give the benefit of the doubt and say, it's not their fault.
	They've been, they're a victim, but ultimately we're all victims in this deception.
	So when we come back, I'm going to play clips from this hearing.
	There's a few good ones.
	The Supreme Court justices have a lot to say here.
	You're going to want to stay tuned.
	You're listening to Just Form Talk Radio.
	We'll be back after the break.
	Welcome back to Just Form Talk Radio.
	I'm your host, Craig James, and we're talking about this case that was heard at the Supreme Court yesterday.
	They've started hearing arguments in the Murthy v. Missouri case which is a very consequential free speech case that is dealing with government censorship and the compelling of private entities to act as censors.
	Now this case is wildly important because it deals with a lot of things that are going to very much affect the way we experience free speech in America going forward.
	So this is a case of quite a lot of importance, and I want to play some clips from it.
	So to give you an idea of what's happening here, Kintaji Jackson Brown, the new justice on the Supreme Court, is basically taking a different approach to free speech in America, which some people may disagree with, including myself, during the oral arguments, which some people may disagree with, including myself, during the oral arguments, she dismissed the First Amendment as a roadblock for the government and big tech in their efforts to collude against Americans to censor their
	She was contrasted by U.S.
	Justice Alito, who argued that the U.S.
	government and big tech should not be colluding to censor the free speech of Americans simply because they don't agree with it, which, I mean,
	You couldn't get more clear or obvious than that being the right response, but of course, when your government is overrun with, again, communists and Marxists, who have this fantastical delusion that they can create a utopia if they just censor and kill enough people, then this is what you are left with.
	Justice Alito responded to one of the lawyers in the case saying, When I see the White House and federal officials repeatedly saying that Facebook and the federal government should not be partners, regular meetings, constant pestering, wow, I can't imagine federal officials taking that approach to print media. I can't imagine federal officials taking that approach to print Oh, okay, so...
	So, yeah, that's true, right?
	Because print media is almost entirely controlled by corporate propagandists in the intelligence communities, and they're henchmen inside of our media apparatus, or organizations.
	So, of course, well, they're not going to censor print media the way they censor social media.
	Let's listen to some of what the exchanges sounded like on the Supreme Court yesterday.
	Exchange between the White House and other federal officials and Facebook in particular, but also some of the other platforms.
	And I see that the White House and federal officials are repeatedly saying that Facebook and the federal government should be partners.
	We're on the same team.
	Officials are demanding answers.
	I want an answer.
	I want it right away.
	When they're unhappy, they They curse them out.
	There are regular meetings.
	There is constant pestering of Facebook and some of the other platforms and they want to have regular meetings and they suggest, why don't you, they suggest rules that should be applied and why don't you tell us everything that you're going to do so we can help you and we can look it over.
	And I thought, wow, I cannot imagine Federal officials taking that approach to the print media, our representatives over there.
	If you did that to them, what do you think the reaction would be?
	And so I thought, you know, the only reason why this is taking place Is because the federal government has got Section 230 and antitrust in its pocket and it's, to mix my metaphors, and it's got these big clubs available to it.
	And so it's treating Facebook and these other platforms like they're subordinates.
	Would you do that to the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal or the Associated Press or any other big newspaper or wire service?
	So, there's a lot packed in there.
	I want to give you one very specific answer first and then step back out to the broader context.
	So specifically, you mentioned demanding an answer right away and cursing them out.
	The only time that happens is in an email that's about the President's own Instagram account.
	It's not about moderating other people.
	Okay, we'll put that aside.
	There's all the rest.
	Constant meetings, constant emails.
	We want answers.
	We're partners.
	We're on the same team.
	Do you think that the print media regards themselves as being on the same team as the federal government?
	Partners with the federal government?
	Potentially in the context of an effort to get Americans vaccinated during a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic.
	And I really think that piece of context, it doesn't change the First Amendment principles, but it's relevant to how they apply here.
	And I think it's important to understand that at this time, this was a time when thousands of Americans were still dying every week, and there was a hope that getting everyone vaccinated could stop the pandemic.
	And there was a concern that Americans were getting their news about the vaccine from these platforms, and the platforms were promoting not just Well, I understand all that, and I know the objectives were good, but once again, they were also getting their news from the print media and the broadcast media and cable media, and I just can't imagine the federal government doing that to them.
	But maybe I'm naive.
	Maybe that goes on behind the scenes.
	It struck me as, wow, this is not what I understand the relationship to be.
	But I do.
	I think this is important, because I have the same reaction that you do, that these emails look unusual.
	I think the idea that there'd be back and forth between the government and the media isn't unusual at all.
	When the White House Press Secretary on July 16th is asked about this by the press at the time, what she says is, of course we talk to the platforms just the way we talk to all of you, when we have concerns about what you're doing, when we have information that you might find helpful.
	Now, there's an intensity of the back and forth here, and there's an anger that I think is unusual.
	But the context for that, I think, is that these platforms were saying publicly, we want to help.
	We think we have a responsibility to give people accurate information and not bad information.
	And we're doing everything we can to meet that goal.
	That's where this language of partnership comes from.
	It's not just from the White House.
	It's these platforms, which are powerful, sophisticated entities.
	So there you have it.
	we can and the anger i think really most of the anger when you read the emails and i appreciate that you have because i think you have to look at them in context the anger is when the officials think that the platforms are not being transparent about the scope of the problem or aren't giving information that's available so there you have it the u.s government harassing yelling at cursing out platforms that won't give the correct information on vaccination
	The U.S.
	when you're in a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic justice we can censor we can work in partnership with platforms to censor information and curate it because we want accurate information i mean i think that's I mean, these people are monsters.
	And I mean that with the utmost and truly the most Sincerity I could muster.
	These people are monsters.
	They are evil.
	They want to strip you of your right to freely think and to have access to information and to speak freely.
	They want to tell you what to think.
	They want to basically take your ability to critically think and remove it and force you to accept their narrative, their premise, their beliefs.
	They're deranged?
	I mean, this guy, Brian Fletcher, who's the Solicitor General, who's making this argument on behalf of the government, looks like a monster.
	He is evil.
	Truly.
	In his heart.
	And I don't mean, look, again, I'll preface it, I don't know what's in another man's heart, okay?
	Let's just be clear.
	I don't know.
	But when I hear somebody speak in those terms of Especially given what we know now about vaccinations and the pandemic.
	And this was yesterday, making this argument in front of the Supreme Court.
	A once-in-a-lifetime pandemic necessitates that we lie to you and we deceive you, but it's for your own good because we have accurate information.
	Oh, the accurate information that's been completely debunked as being inaccurate?
	The accurate information about the efficacy of vaccines that's been completely undercut by the truth of what's happening?
	You know, there is a special place in hell for people like this.
	And I don't know what's in another man's heart.
	I will not say that.
	I do.
	Who knows about this Brian Fletcher guy, but it makes me sick to my stomach.
	As an American, As a man who believes in free speech, free thought, the exchange of ideas being a sacred principle to freedom, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, everything that guy just said is a complete affront to your freedom and liberty.
	Remember that.
	Remember that name, Brian Fletcher.
	Remember, don't let these people get away with it.
	Stay tuned.
	We'll be back after the break.
	Welcome back to Just Form Talk Radio.
	I'm your host, Craig James, and we're talking about what happened in this Murthy v. Missouri case being heard by the Supreme Court.
	It's a case that's dealing with a lot of big things, but consequential free speech case is exactly how I would describe it.
	It's one of the most consequential free speech cases in our lifetimes.
	And we just heard some arguments from the U.S. Solicitor General, Brian Fletcher, arguing that because of the unique once-in-a-lifetime nature of the pandemic, they can censor you.
	They can, you know, work with big tech corporations to censor free speech because they have accurate information.
	And I could go through all the clips, but I don't really want to waste your time.
	You all know, I know, We've all heard the clips where the government comes out and says one thing, then the next day comes out and contradicts itself.
	They tell you masks are good, then they say masks are bad.
	They tell you, you know, the vaccine's bad when it's Trump's vaccine, but then it's good when Joe Biden's in office, right?
	And, of course, they go back and forth and back and forth on everything, yet they're the ones with the accurate information, so we should not listen to anybody but them.
	And we shouldn't even have the right to hear it, right?
	They should be able to work clandestinely behind closed doors with these corporations to secretly censor you so that you don't even know you're being withheld this information.
	That's what we just experienced, and I really do think it's pure evil.
	So, we have more clips, though.
	Kataji Jackson Brown got into it with the Louisiana solicitor who is advocating, I guess, on behalf of free speech, to a degree.
	This is their exchange.
	Listen to this.
	Whether or not the government can do this, this is something I took up with Mr. Fletcher.
	It depends on the application of our First Amendment jurisprudence and there may be circumstances in which the government could prohibit certain speech on the Internet or otherwise.
	I mean, do you disagree that we would have to apply strict scrutiny and determine whether or not there is a compelling interest?
	Uh, and how the government has tailored, uh, its regulation?
	Certainly, Your Honor.
	I think at the end of every First Amendment analysis, you'll have the strict scrutiny framework in which, you know, in some national security hypos, for example, the government may well be able to demonstrate a compelling interest, may well be able to demonstrate... All right, so, so, so not every situation will, in which the government engages in conduct that ultimately has Some effect on speech necessarily becomes a First Amendment violation, correct?
	Maybe not necessarily, Your Honor.
	I guess the top line question I would ask is, has the government set out to abridge the freedom of speech?
	And in this case, you see that time and time again, because if you control it... That's not the test for First Amendment violations.
	Your Honor, this flows from the plain text of the First Amendment, right?
	No, I understand, but we have a test for a determination of whether or not the First Amendment is actually violated.
	So, in certain situations, you know, the government can actually Require that speech be suppressed if there's a compelling interest, right?
	It can, Your Honor, and I guess what I would say is that the courts below never got to strict scrutiny because the government never raised this, this has never been litigated.
	The question in this case is whether at the front end, the government itself has undertaken action.
	It's the coercion, it's the state action, right?
	That's the question in this case.
	And I would urge the court to address the state action issue just like you addressed it in Bantam Books.
	Use that term four times in Bantam Books.
	And could I just understand, because it seems like an extremely expansive argument.
	So, as a person who filed lawsuits, myself with others, and went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and almost took the case to the Supreme Court, and this was a case about free speech censorship, coercion of big tech companies to suppress information, what I just heard there is The most insane thing I've ever heard.
	This is what happens when you have diversity hires, first of all, on the Supreme Court, which Contagi, Jackson, Brown, or whatever her name is, that's what she is.
	Let's all be honest.
	She didn't get there on her marriage.
	She's a diversity hire.
	And I know people are going to say, oh, that's racist.
	Well, you know what?
	There were plenty of other individuals that could have been selected and we know that, I mean, I'm not, how is it racist if I'm just pointing out the fact that when they were talking about who they were going to have as the next Supreme Court Justice, the White House and Biden and all these people, we're going to pick a woman of color!
	Well, when you say something like, we're going to pick a woman of color, you are making a diversity hire, because you are excluding a number of candidates who may be much more qualified to hold that position.
	So you can call me a racist because, you know, there's the low IQ morons out there who think, it's racist if you don't want black women on the Supreme Court.
	No, how about this?
	How about I don't want We're going to exclude everyone who is not a woman of color for this position.
	That's not equal representation.
	That's not meritocracy.
	That's racism.
	We're going to exclude a portion of the population to fill some diversity quota.
	We're going to exclude everyone who is not a woman of color for this position.
	That's not equal representation.
	That's not meritocracy.
	That's racism.
	That's apartheid.
	And what does the First Amendment say?
	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government to redress their grievances.
	Let's refocus on the key phrase there.
	How about this?
	They will not make a law Prohibiting or bridging freedom of speech.
	But diversity hire B.J.
	Kentagi Jackson wants us to believe that, yeah, there are certain circumstances where the government, if it's got the right interests, can just take away your First Amendment right.
	Even though this hasn't been litigated, really, and this isn't even really a case that's ever been brought up.
	Huh.
	Interesting.
	So, that's what you get when you put diversity hires on the Supreme Court, folks.
	Anyway, stay tuned.
	We got more to come.
	You're listening to Just Informed Talk Radio.
	We'll be back after the break.
	Welcome back to Just Informed Talk Radio.
	I'm your host, Craig James.
	So, we're talking about this case, Murthy v. Missouri, that's being heard by the Supreme Court of the United States.
	We've been listening to some of the arguments and it's completely
	Off the rails, the way that they are trying to argue that the government should be able to censor information that we receive and be able to tell us, you know, that we don't have the First Amendment because a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic comes around so we can just work unilaterally with corporations behind the scenes to secretly censor the population so that they only receive our accurate information, which we know is wildly inaccurate,
	And we have proof of that because we have the ability to have an attention span longer than a goldfish, and remember when they say things time and time again that are completely contradictory.
	But it's accurate.
	It's accurate even though it completely contradicts itself.
	Hmm.
	Seems like they really do want us confused, but I want to play this final clip Where Kintaji Brown-Jackson, the diversity hire of the Supreme Court, who is completely, in my opinion, a Marxist-Communist infiltrator who has been placed on the court to act as an agent of chaos, she made a very interesting statement in the continuing discussion she had.
	Listen to this right here.
	Justice Jackson?
	So my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods.
	I mean, what would you have the government do?
	I've heard you say a couple times that the government can post its own speech, but in my hypothetical, You know, kids, this is not safe, don't do it, is not going to get it done.
	And so, I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information.
	Well, there you heard it.
	Because I'm really worried about that because you've got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government's perspective.
	And you're saying that the government can't interact with the source of those problems.
	Well, there you heard it.
	I mean, it's almost like you can't believe what you're hearing.
	But this is the modern iteration of the left.
	Right?
	See, because communists know that they need strong, big, central government to enslave us.
	So, Kintaji Jackson Brown, or Brown Jackson, whatever her name is, who cares?
	She's a moron.
	Goes up there and says...
	I'm worried that you're saying that the government, uh, that the First Amendment's hamstringing the government's ability to enslave us!
	Oh, Big Daddy Government, please!
	Tell me what I can do more!
	Restrict my life more!
	Restrict my freedom!
	It's all about protecting me!
	Oh, yeah, just like the Patriot Act.
	It was all about protecting us from those big, bad terrorists!
	Oh, yet, yet now, if you're a Christian in the United States, you're the terrorist!
	Oh, you believe in Christ?
	Oh, you believe in morality and the things that are good?
	Oh, you think communism's bad?
	Oh, well you must be one of those domestic terrorists.
	You don't deserve the right to have free speech.
	The government tells you what you can and can't say.
	These are, these are evil people.
	They're, they're rejecting God with these arguments.
	They're taking away what makes us unique and free.
	Stay tuned, we'll be back.
	Welcome back to Just Form Talk Radio, I'm your host Craig James.
	This is Hour 2 of the Just Form Talk Radio Show and we have a lot of big stories to keep going through here today.
	So far today, though, we've been talking about this Supreme Court case that is being heard as we speak, Murthy v. Missouri.
	We went through some of the arguments and some of the responses from the justices, and it's really disturbing.
	But we had somebody text in, and I want to share what they wrote, which I think is very, very articulated, very well articulated.
	They said, Justice Jackson could just as well say, we have a compelling interest in keeping people from discovering how absolutely horrible the jab is, how wrong jab and mask mandates were, and how wrong we were to lock down the economy in some states for much longer than was warranted or even necessary.
	Justice Jackson could just as easily say, I'm with the government and I'm here to help.
	The nine most terrifying words in the English language.
	Thank you.
	Yes, I could not have summarized it better.
	That is the exact sentiment of the statements that we heard from Justice Jackson.
	So thank you from our 505 texter.
	If you want to text, the number is open 877-536-1360 is the number 877-536-1360.
	You can text that number.
	I want to hear your thoughts.
	Please text in.
	When you guys contribute, it actually makes this show so much better.
	And I really appreciate when you do.
	It's those kind of just dead on accurate statements that obviously make the content that we're doing here that much more accurate and informative and helpful.
	to...
	So thank you for that.
	I really, I couldn't agree, I've agreed with that, that texture anymore.
	You know, we talk about censorship, so that's the case.
	We kind of gave you the long and short summary of what happened in day one.
	Obviously, there's going to be more days of hearing, I believe, and then they'll make a decision.
	But here's the interesting thing.
	You know, they talk about, oh, it's a good thing that the government's working with big tech, right, to censor us.
	It's for our own good, because they have accurate information.
	You know, like, they know that Joe Biden won the election in 2020.
	And to even suggest otherwise means you're a crazy conspiracy theorist who should probably have all of your rights stripped away and maybe even thrown into a gulag in Washington, D.C.
	and locked away forever.
	Perhaps that's a fitting punishment for people who stand up against these criminals.
	There was an interesting study that just came out I want to talk about here.
	A new study came out confirming that Google has interfered in American elections 41 times in recent years.
	Oh really?
	Wait, you're telling me that the corporation that they're arguing should be allowed to censor our free speech and coordination in conjunction with the US federal government is meddling in our elections?
	I am shocked.
	I am shocked, but listen to this.
	Researchers have found 41 times where Google interfered in elections over the last 16 years, and its impact has surged dramatically, making it ever more harmful to democracy.
	In every case, Google harmed the candidates, regardless of party, who threatened its left-wing candidate of choice.
	Hmm, interesting.
	The report continues.
	From the mouths of Google executives, the tech giant let slip what was never meant to be made public, that Google uses its great strength in resources and reach to advance its leftist values.
	Google's outsized influence on information technology, the body politique, and American elections became evident in 2008 after failing to prevent then-candidate for President Donald Trump from being inaugurated following the 2016 election.
	I think it should say 2016 there.
	Google has since made clear to any discerning observer that it has been and will continue interfering in America's elections.
	So Google's response is that it's a business incentive to keep both sides happy, but the truth is that everything that they've done at this point Their actions speak far louder than their words.
	I know that y'all remember, just as well as I do, in the aftermath of the 2016 election that leaked all hands meeting from Google's internal board members meeting with the entire company, where you have executives, Google's executives,
	Standing on a stage in front of all of their employees crying, saying that they will never allow this to happen again.
	Vowing to tip the scale in favor of their leftist agenda because they were obviously involved in the scam that took place in 2020.
	They told us they were going to do it and they did it.
	Dr. Robert Epstein, who's done great research on this, has all but proven it.
	He has a number of resources that you can go to right now and see the level of complete and utter infestation that our government is facing right now.
	The way that they are entirely Destroying free speech in America, but also tipping the scales in favor of their leftist agenda.
	It's all there.
	It's all clear.
	But, it's okay because they can get away with it.
	So, another part of the study found that most recent example was recorded after Google's artificial intelligence Gemini refused to answer questions damaging to President Biden.
	So, the bias is baked in to the equation here, right?
	They are biased.
	They are leftists.
	They are Marxists.
	They are communists.
	And you say, well, that's a pejorative.
	Why do you say that?
	Well, it is a pejorative, and I'm not saying it to necessarily be dehumanizing.
	It's a matter-of-fact observation.
	It'd be like saying, I am a Christian nationalist.
	It's not Derisive, it is an objective matter of fact.
	So, here's the thing.
	We'll have to make a choice at some point going into the future.
	There'll come a day where we'll each have to individually make a choice.
	Whether we submit to this tyranny, give in, give up, let the AI take over, cede our Entire freedom, liberty, to a system that wants nothing more than to have an easily manipulated slave class.
	You know, the greatest trick that they'll pull on all of us, unfortunately, is to convince us that we are free when we are not.
	Oh yeah, you're free!
	You're free to go consume the pornography.
	You're free to go Eat the GMO food.
	You're, you're free to, you know, go watch whatever, you know, sport team that you want.
	Oh, but, but, oh, you say something bad about the government.
	Yeah, you're not that free, are you?
	Well, unfortunately, that's where we find ourselves, but we're going to get into some more stories because it, I don't want to say it gets worse.
	It just, there's more.
	Stay tuned.
	You're listening to Just Form Talk Radio.
	We'll be back after the break.
	Welcome back, Just Form Talk Radio.
	I'm your host, Craig James.
	And we're talking about censorship in America because it's been put on full display with this Supreme Court case being heard, Murthy v. Missouri.
	It's also been put on full display with the way Google and other corporate media entities have flagrantly interfered in our elections and continue to interfere in our elections.
	But that's not enough now, so they've weaponized the Justice Department to engage in further election interference.
	And With a bit of imagination, you can easily see what's coming in the future, right?
	And why do I say that?
	Because Tucker Carlson over on Twitter said this, which I think is interesting.
	He said, in a classified briefing this afternoon, attended by officials from the Biden Justice Department, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the communist, Marxist claimed that Elon committed quote-unquote election interference in 2022 by changing the algorithms quote-unquote on X to alter the results of the midterms that year.
	Now, he then goes on to reference the anti-TikTok legislation, which is essentially allowing the federal government to force the sale of any social media platform that interferes in elections.
	So, he's making a parallel, drawing a parallel to show that's what's coming in 2025.
	That they're going to try to, essentially, if they can't control the algorithms, then they will force the Organization, the media company, to sell their company, their service, to a company that will capitulate to the demands of the federal government.
	So, here's my thought.
	Everything that we're seeing now, I'm not a big fan of Elon Musk, to be honest with you.
	I've made it very clear.
	I don't like the way he talks about things.
	But even a broken clock is wrong twice a day.
	And he is right about free speech, even though he doesn't actually have free speech.
	Here's the thing that's wild to me, okay?
	People call Elon Musk this champion of free speech, when he really doesn't champion free speech whatsoever.
	He talks about the fact that, you know, he believes in free speech, yet there are still people... I haven't gotten my original account back on Twitter.
	I've had to make other accounts to get back on that platform.
	So, the censorship is still there, and there are some people, whether you like them or not, whether you agree with them or not, Who's free speech has still to this day been taken away on Twitter like Nick Fuentes.
	Again, you can like him or hate him.
	It doesn't matter to me.
	I'm kind of indifferent on the whole thing.
	You know, I like to listen to a myriad of different opinions so that I understand what's going on.
	I'll listen to Don Lemon at CNN just to hear his Stupidity, just as much as I'll hear anyone else on the far right, quote-unquote, to hear their ideas and stupidity, if it is stupid at all.
	Right?
	But there is this disconnect between true free speech and these platforms.
	They still censor.
	Okay, fine.
	However, there's an exchange between Don Lemon, And Elon Musk, that was great, where... I mean, I'll summarize it.
	It's six minutes, but they say the same thing over and over and over again, so it's not worth playing that clip.
	But essentially what it comes down to is Don is trying to push Elon Musk.
	He's saying, why don't you take down hate speech off your website?
	Now again, I don't like Elon Musk, and I think everybody who keeps telling me he's a free speech advocate is only lying to themselves because he's not truly about free speech.
	As I am a free speech extremist, I think all speech should be allowed.
	Regardless.
	But that's me.
	That's my personal opinion.
	He, on the other hand, doesn't really believe that, because his actions speak louder than his words.
	But his words, I think, in sentiment, I agree with.
	Because what he says is essentially, if the speech is illegal, we take it down.
	Okay?
	Which is the way it should be, by the way.
	But then he talks about how, well, if it's hate speech, then we suppress it.
	Right?
	So that's censorship, right?
	The algorithm won't promote it.
	Well that's censorship, because you're picking what to promote and what not to promote.
	Why can't the algorithm just promote what people want?
	If people want to hear a certain person speak, they should be able to hear that person speak.
	And the algorithm shouldn't make some decision, this AI shouldn't be making decisions about what speech is to be promoted and what speech is to be suppressed.
	But the argument that Don Lamon And Elon Musk have is about deleting censoring hate speech quote-unquote which hate speech isn't even a thing by the way it's a made-up term by Marxists who and I don't know how this has become commonplace this idea of hate speech it's so
	Insanely against the First Amendment that it baffles my mind that they think there's some category of speech that can be censored or suppressed because it's hateful!
	We don't want to promote hate!
	Well, these people have lost the threat.
	They've lost the threat completely on what it means to have free speech in America.
	But beyond that, they have this argument back and forth, and essentially, Elon says, look, if it's illegal, we remove it, if it's not, then it stays up, but we suppress it if it's hate.
	And I just think to myself, wow, even though Elon is a hypocritical liar, who is claiming to be an advocate for free speech while simultaneously censoring and suppressing free speech, It's the best of what we got.
	Right?
	It's just like... I hate to... I'm not drawing a comparison between Trump and Elon Musk, but I'm just saying it's similar to how I view politicians.
	You're never going to find a politician you agree with 100% of the time on everything.
	Right?
	But sometimes, you have to make a choice because there is no other... There's the idea that we have to progressively move I don't agree with Trump on the vaccine.
	I don't agree with Trump on abortion.
	Am I going to vote for Trump?
	Yes.
	Am I going to support Trump?
	Yes.
	Why?
	Because he supports a majority of ideas that I agree with.
	with 100% of the time on everything with.
	I don't agree with Trump on the vaccine.
	I don't agree with Trump on abortion.
	Am I going to vote for Trump?
	Yes.
	Am I going to support Trump?
	Yes.
	Why?
	Because he supports a majority of ideas that I agree with.
	And that's how politics works, unfortunately.
	.
	Thank you.
	You know, some people think when I say that I'm calling for some theocratic dictatorship.
	Well, I don't know about that, but I am a Christian nationalist who thinks this nation must be ran by Christians, and I think that freedom The ideas and principles of freedom that we enshrined in our Bill of Rights and Constitution came from Christian ideas of morality and principle.
	And that if you remove Christianity from our schools and replace it with this idea of universalism and embracing any and all religions, then you're going to have demonic, Demonic authoritarians take over, like the Satanists who want to have an after-school club for your kids, right?
	Or the Islamic fundamentalists who want to create their own theocracy based on their bastardized interpretation of the way the world should be.
	Or, you're gonna get the LGBTQ theocracy, which we already are living in, by the way, where they're gonna tell you that if you don't chemically castrate your young child for playing with a Barbie doll once, you're a bad person!
	You're evil!
	You should be ostracized!
	You should be gang harassed!
	Which is something they do, by the way.
	I don't know if these are botnets or if they're literally gangs, but try going online and saying something truthful about trannies, right?
	Some mentally ill degenerate who wants to put on a thong and strip in front of toddlers and young children Say something negative about them in the comments on a social media platform.
	Watch what happens.
	They're gangs.
	Right?
	That's what authoritarians do.
	That's what fascists do.
	So, if we're going to live in a theocracy, it must be and it has to be a Christian one.
	So, you can say, oh, we can't have that.
	Well, we're already in one.
	All I'm saying is it should be a Christian one!
	And that's my right to believe.
	And that's my right to fight for.
	It's your right to fight for as well.
	It's your duty.
	If you truly believe, in my opinion, in Jesus Christ, He doesn't call on us to be lukewarm.
	He calls on us to be all in.
	To be on fire for the gospel to go out in the world and proclaim it.
	Matthew 28 is the Great Commission.
	We are meant to go in the world and make disciples of all nations.
	We're not meant to sit back and say, well, I don't know, I mean, separation of church and state, everybody should have freedom, you know?
	You know what that's going to lead to?
	It's going to lead to what we're experiencing right now getting even worse.
	Try walking down Pearl Street over in Boulder.
	Homeless everywhere.
	The rainbow flags are in the windows.
	Because the cult's taken over.
	And you know what the worst thing is?
	I don't have hatred in my heart toward any of these people.
	I want them to be saved.
	I want them to have a fulfilling life.
	I want them to find Christ.
	I want them to have families and make babies.
	And love one another.
	And treat each other well?
	You think you're treating... You know, you think... You're sick!
	If you think treating your child like some kind of science experiment and shooting them up with hormones and drugs and castrating them and giving them double the... You think that's helping them?
	You think telling a child that God made a mistake when He created them is good?
	You're the delusional one!
	Make sure you know that.
	You're the sick one.
	You're the perverse one.
	You're the one who is immoral.
	You're the one who is going to face a consequence that I can't save you from.
	But that's where we're at.
	And it bothers me, but it also It does give me hope that we can change, because if we recognize it, if we take steps in the right direction, we can change the course of this ship.
	We can right our course.
	These people have deluded themselves to a point where they've fully bought into the idea of moral relativism to a point Where any and everything is acceptable.
	As long as it's not something founded and structured on the premise of that which is good.
	Christian morality.
	That which can lead to eternal salvation.
	That which can save souls.
	They don't want you to see that.
	They don't want you to have that relationship with God.
	The closer you are to God, the further you are out of their control system.
	Their matrix.
	The more of a relationship you have with God, the clearer things become.
	When you can clearly understand what's good and what's evil, then you're not manipulatable.
	You can't be manipulated.
	You can't be deceived.
	And trust me, trust me when I say, they can't exploit you if they can't deceive you.
	They can't enslave you if they can't manipulate you.
	They can't drag you to hell with them if you know God in your heart and His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit.
	That's just the truth.
	Stay tuned.
	We'll be back after the break.
	Welcome back to Just Forum Talk Radio.
	I'm your host, Craig James.
	And, you know, we're getting into some big, you know, kind of bigger existential ideas, right?
	These ideas.
	Ideological things.
	But that's good.
	You know, philosophical.
	I think we have a good conversation, but we have other stories we want to cover here today.
	I'll kind of rapid fire through them.
	These are all kind of dealing with Trump, so I think they're very interesting to talk about.
	Mike Pence has come out now and says that he will not endorse President Trump.
	Shocker.
	Shocker.
	I'm shocked that the trader who, you know, certified the fraudulent election is not supporting Donald Trump.
	Okay, good news.
	Other stories with Trump that we can talk about.
	If Pence was supporting Trump, I would probably be concerned.
	So thank you, Pence, Mike, for making your true colors even more clearly shown.
	Uh, in the extortion case of Donald Trump in New York City, Trump's come out and said he's unable to secure his $454 million judgment in, uh, secure the bond for his $454 million judgment in the New York City fraud case as Letitia James is threatening now again that she will seize his assets.
	They're going to name it Letitia Towers instead of Trump Towers now, so get ready for that.
	That's going to be coming down in the proper... But, you know, remember, that case in New York, right?
	Some people think, oh, who cares, it's not me, it's not my problem.
	Just like Alex Jones was the canary in the coal mine for censorship that was eventually rolled out against all of us, right?
	Remember that?
	Remember when we all thought, oh, well, you know, Alex Jones, he's a little kooky.
	He's a little out there.
	He's a little, you know, a little extreme for me, but I agree with him.
	Remember that?
	But you're like, oh, well, you know, they censor him.
	It's fine.
	You know, I understand.
	Some people had that opinion.
	Not all.
	Some people.
	I wasn't one of those people.
	I'm sure maybe you weren't one of those people, but that's what people had.
	They had an apathetic approach.
	They said, well, you know, it's a, you know.
	I understand.
	Alex is, he's, he's an abrasive fellow.
	Right?
	And the next thing you know, they censored us all!
	They took us all off social media.
	Remember that right before the 2020 election when they purged every social media platform across the board of pro-Trump supporters who had narratives that would counter the fake news propaganda that was used to seal the election in conjunction with some other very seedy and nefarious tactics?
	And then we're all sitting there going, oh really?
	There's an old poem.
	I think it was made by a Lutheran pastor.
	He was recounting his experience during World War II.
	I'm going to paraphrase it.
	I don't remember it exactly, but essentially what he says is, first they came for all these other people and I said nothing because that wasn't me.
	It didn't affect me.
	And then they came for me and there was no one left to listen because they had taken everyone.
	What happened with Alex Jones, and you can mark my words, that what you just saw take place in New York City is what they have planned for us in the future.
	If we step out of line or disagree with their narrative, or we challenge their power structures, they will take us to court, they will get some judge to make some summary ruling, and they did this to Alex Jones too!
	Interestingly enough, they did this to him in the Sandy Hook case, but they're gonna do it to all of us eventually.
	They will use the court system to go after everyone and anyone who stands in their way.
	They will bankrupt you, they will threaten you with imprisonment, they will threaten your friends and family with Harsh punishments and jail time if they don't cooperate against you.
	They will levy a ruling that will leave you destitute and incapable of fighting back.
	And they will do it all with complete and total impunity, just like what we've seen here in this case in New York City.
	So that's good.
	Keep that in your back pocket.
	Georgia in their RICO case is just a complete joke.
	To put the whole system of quote-unquote justice under indictment for their actions in this case is almost not enough.
	Here's what's happened.
	There was a RICO case, we all know that, brought against Trump and a bunch of his allies saying that he tried to interfere with the election by calling the Secretary of State and saying, stop counting fraudulent ballots.
	Stop halting election processes so that you can give time to individuals who want to rig the whole thing.
	That is election interference.
	What's fascinating to me is it's like the actual election interference isn't election interference.
	The lady, that one lady who is, you know, famous for like scanning ballots twice or whatever, she's like a hero.
	She's been given like a settlement for her, you know, all the damage that was done to her life.
	Oh, poor me.
	I helped rig an election and now I'm being paid by the state to shut my mouth.
	So that's not the case.
	The case isn't about the RICO conspiracy that was put forth to rig the election.
	You know, when pipes were bursting in the middle of the night.
	Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of votes just showing up out of nowhere.
	3 AM.
	Completely changing the outcome.
	Yeah, no, that's fine.
	But Trump making a phone call saying, like, what's going on down there?
	We're going to get him on RICO, right?
	In that case, the prosecutor, Fannie Willis, who is a complete degenerate, let's be honest, a thug, a gangster, right?
	Which is probably where her whole motivation lies.
	She's, like, famous for going out to, like, the hip-hop awards and being seen with famous rappers.
	And these are rappers, like, that rap about extortion, and crimes, and Rico conspiracies.
	You ain't never gonna catch me on no Rico.
	That's like one of the lyrics, I'm sure, from one of the songs of one of the rappers that she's hung out with.
	And here she is bringing a Rico case against Trump.
	Meanwhile, what is she doing?
	Well, she is facilitating Hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to her boyfriend, who she was having an extramarital affair with, apparently, allegedly.
	And then she lies to the court about it all, and then the judge overseeing the case happened to be a donor to her campaign, so he's obviously in her pocket, or she's in his pocket, or whatever you want to call it.
	And when they find out that she's lying about all of this and that she is, in fact, having a relationship and that she is, in fact, giving him all this money, what's the outcome?
	The outcome is this.
	The judge ruled that Fannie Willis can continue her trial against Trump as long as either her or her boyfriend steps down from the case.
	Like, what?
	How does that even make sense?
	Oh, but don't worry.
	Because the judge, in order to ease some of the tension on himself, dismissed six charges in the Rico case.
	So we should, we should be, you know, he's obviously completely impartial and objective and unbiased because look, he, he took down six of the, I don't know, 40 charges against Trump.
	That's so, there you go.
	What do you need, people?
	These people are so corrupt.
	It is mind-boggling, but hey, that's the world we live in.
	When we come back, I've got more stories to share.
	A little bit on Liz Cheney.
	Yeah.
	You're going to want to stay tuned.
	We've got a lot more to cover.
	You're listening to Just Form Talk Radio.
	Welcome back to Just Form Talk Radio.
	I'm your host, Craig James.
	You know, sometimes I see stuff and I think they intentionally say things to evoke a reaction.
	And I think this is exactly the case.
	Our corrupt, degenerate Secretary of State here in the state of Colorado, Janet Griswold, has just put a post on social media saying, I support an assault weapons ban in Colorado.
	We can't wait for the federal government to act.
	Hmm.
	Interesting.
	How does that make everybody out there in the listening audience feel?
	You think they should, uh... You think if they just ban your... If they just take away your assault weapons, they won't take away any of your other weapons.
	A what-is-it assault weapon?
	Meh.
	We'll figure that out later.
	We'll just ban them first.
	You know what I support?
	I support throwing Jenna Griswold in prison for deprivation of rights under color of law.
	Because that's essentially what she's been advocating in every sense that you can imagine.
	From the way that she tried to remove Trump from the ballot, take away our rights, to take away our Second Amendment rights, yeah, I think we should probably look at maybe throwing her in prison.
	How about that?
	How about we start with Jenna Griswold?
	Let's put her in prison.
	Legally and lawfully, with a trial, We're not calling for any crazy extrajudicial stuff like the left do.
	We're calling for her to be brought up on charges of depriving us of our rights under color of law.
	That's what she's doing!
	But again, it's all a distraction.
	It's all a big theater.
	They're so corrupt that they know what they're doing very well.
	Um, I said I wanted to talk about Liz Cheney.
	I was going to do that.
	Uh, she apparently has been exposed in the January 6th case, which we already know about.
	Suppressing, exonerating evidence.
	Okay, great.
	Perfect.
	Just add it to the list, folks.
	You know, one day there will be justice for these people.
	If it's not in this life, it surely will be in the next.
	When you live Outside of what is good for so long, it's only going to lead to one outcome.
	Trust me on that.
	Somebody texted in from the 970 saying, good morning, grateful for your contribution, faith and freedom.
	It's with a heavy heart to speak of the brutal physical beating of a beautiful St.
	Louis, Missouri, 15-year-old girl, Kaylee Gane, who was fighting for her life.
	Kaylee, at school, when a demon-possessed girl attacked her, bashed her head several times.
	Oh, and the concrete parents, take heed to what these Moloch-worshipping schools are doing to your children.
	Pray for Kaylee Gane, yes.
	We'll do it.
	Lord and Heavenly Father, I and our audience pray for Kaylee Gaines to recover from her incident, the savage beating that she received, and the pain that she's suffering now.
	Lord, heal her.
	Bring her back to health.
	Be with her family.
	Amen.
	I could cover these stories, folks, but there's a new one every day.
	It would take most of the show to just keep up with The level of violence, unnecessary, unprovoked, demonically possessed individuals committing heinous acts of violence against young children.
	I mean, if you can homeschool, it's a good idea.
	Get your kids out of these Rockefeller indoctrination centers.
	Get your kids out of these Marxist training camps.
	Get your kids out of these LGBTQ cultist indoctrination zones.
	Get your kids out of these dangerous places, if you can.
	I understand if you can't.
	But, yeah.
	Thank you for that contribution.
	Thank you for that text.
	You know, the new narrative they're going to give us on Trump goes a little something like this.
	...greatest asset, the shamelessness of him, is then Biden has to get in there very hard and go rapist, racist, fascist, over and over and over again, and then the trials are happening at the same time.
	He's just had to pay, he's just 93 million dollars poor right now, and just hammer it in with those three things.
	Rapist, racist, fascist.
	But here's the thing.
	Yes, hammer it into your psyche.
	These are good Marxists, Communists.
	These are rules for radicals, Alinskyites.
	These are the tactics that they know work.
	They've worked historically.
	This is how you overthrow a government, folks.
	This is why it's so important that we support Trump.
	Regardless of whether you agree with Trump on everything, if you let them get away with it with Trump, it's game over for the rest of us.
	I firmly believe that.
	I'm no expert, by any means.
	But I do know that if you give these monsters an inch, they will take a mile, and more.
	So I guess that's what I want to finish on.
	Remember, we have to make decisions now.
	We can't wait till it's too late.
	We can't wait till the boot comes crashing into our backside, as Yuri Bezmenev would put it.
	You're being walked up to the concentration camp, as he says in his analogy.
	You're being shown through the chain-link fence.
	This is what's happening.
	I think this show did a fairly good job of at least showing a few of those things.
	Don't wait until that boot comes crashing into your backside to take action.
	Don't wait until it's too late, folks.
	And what do I mean by that?
	I mean, get involved.
	Get involved with your civic process.
	Go become an election worker.
	Go get involved with the Republican Party.
	Take back the Republican Party from these rhinos.
	I saw them firsthand.
	Why is the county commissioner in Weld County Deleting your right to speak freely at their meetings.
	Why?
	Because they're RINOs.
	And they're proud of it.
	Trust me, I met them firsthand at the Republican Caucus meeting here in Weld County.
	The person running the meeting walked up to me and proudly introduced herself as a RINO.
	I'm a RINO, so what are you going to do about it?
	Well, we're going to take the party back from you.
	Politefully and respectfully, legally and lawfully.
	But it's going to take us getting involved to do that.
	See, they rely on the fact that most of us will always believe that it's somebody else who needs to do it.
	No, it's you and me.
	We have to do it.
	So that's, and if you're listening in other places, if you're listening in the UK, you're listening in Canada, you're listening in Australia, you need to do it too.
	You're listening in other states in America, you need to do it too.
	Get involved locally.
	Start there.
	That's how we right the ship.
	One person at a time.
	And share that Gospel.
	Commit the Great Commission.
	Go out and spread the Gospel to all nations.
	We're going to do that when we come back.
	Stay tuned.
	You're listening to Just a Forum Talk Radio.
	Welcome back to Just a Forum Talk Radio.
	I'm your host Craig James.
	It's our final segment.
	Yeah, I know.
	Time flies, huh?
	But that's alright because at the end of every episode we do our God's Grace is Greater segment.
	This is the most important segment to me of the entire show because It's about sharing scripture and leaving you guys with some hope and encouragement to take with you into your day to go out and do great things for the Lord.
	And remember that all these things we've talked about, they all come to nothing ultimately.
	What is important is our eternal soul and where it goes after this life.
	And you can have solace and peace in your heart knowing where it goes when you accept the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as your Savior and you Allow Him to enter your life and do great things.
	And God cares for us immensely.
	Like a father cares for his child, that's the way God cares for us.
	So much so that He sent His only Son, our Lord, to come down and die, to become sin for us, to be free of our sin.
	To be forgiven, to be cleansed, to be able to have the privilege to have eternal salvation.
	So that's why we do this, because that's more important than any of this stuff.
	But it is intrinsically tied with the battle of good and evil that's been existing forever.
	Here we're in Psalms, Book of Psalms, Psalm 65, and this is a Psalm about God's care for the earth.
	Another Davidic Psalm.
	And I want to share this with you because these words are powerful, and I hope that We all can glean some discernment, wisdom, and encouragement from them.
	It says, Praise is rightfully yours.
	God in Zion vows to you will be fulfilled.
	All humanity will come to you.
	The one who hears prayer, inequities overwhelm me.
	Only you can atone for our rebellions.
	How happy is the one you choose and bring near to live in your courts.
	We will be satisfied with the goodness of your house, the holiness of your temple.
	You answer us in righteousness with awe-inspiring works, God of our salvation, the hope of all the ends of the earth and the distant seas.
	You establish the mountains by your power, robed with strength.
	You silence the roar of the seas, the roar of the waves, the tumult of the nations.
	Those who live far away are awed by your signs.
	You make East and West shout for joy.
	You visit the earth and water it abundantly, enriching it greatly.
	God's stream is filled with water, for you prepare the earth in this way, providing people with grain.
	You soften it with showers and bless its growth, soaking its furrows and leveling its ridges.
	You crown the year with your goodness.
	Your ways overflow with plenty.
	The wilderness pastures overflow, and the hills are robed with joy.
	The pastures are clothed with the flocks.
	And the valleys covered with grain.
	They shout in triumph.
	Indeed, they sing.
	Remember that.
	God is able to give us great abundance.
	And He will.
	And if you haven't accepted Jesus as your Savior, please open your heart.
	Say a prayer.
	Accept Him.
	Let Him do great things in your life.
	And if you already have accepted him, continue to trust in him and believe his word when he says he has good plans and a hope and a future for you.
	Stay tuned, we have great shows coming up next.
	We'll see you tomorrow, God willing.
	I'm Craig, this is Just Warm Talk.
	Godspeed and God bless each and every one of you patriots.
	24 may be the year of a black swan event.
	This is a national security event with high impact that's very hard to predict.
	Warning, financial collapse is imminent.
	That's why Craig from Just Informed Talk teamed up with the most reliable company for buying real physical gold and silver at the absolute best prices available.
	Visit shop.allamericangold.com today.

▲