Shared post - Indoor inauguration

Posts

Articles

October 22, 2024

Kamala Harris campaign dying

The Kamala Harris campaign is gasping for breath, as a critical-care patient does shortly before dying. Even one of Donald J. Trump’s most vicious detractors among evangelical or “born-again Christians” will no longer deny the signs. At the same time, two other Christian apologists have discovered that tens of millions of self-identifying Christians do not even plan to vote, and are asking them to reconsider.
Kamala Harris campaign and its dying breaths
Recall that your editor has a medical degree. He earned that in part through core clinical clerkships that exposed him to patients breathing their last as he watched. Heart- and lung-disease specialists, and critical-care specialists (at The Johns Hopkins Hospital, the Anesthesiology Department also manages all Intensive Care Units), speak of agonal respirations. These are the hesitating breaths a patient takes until at last the patient expels all air from his lungs.
So what are the agonal respirations of the Kamala Harris campaign? Erick-Woods Erickson listed them. He’s not talking about the ...

CNAV.NEWS

Kamala Harris campaign dying - Conservative News and Views

The Kamala Harris campaign shows every sign of dying, with people already blaming one another for the inevitable loss.

Terry A Hurlbut@Temlakos

October 21, 2024

Kamala Harris campaign dying

CNAV.NEWS

Kamala Harris campaign dying - Conservative News and Views

The Kamala Harris campaign shows every sign of dying, with people already blaming one another for the inevitable loss.

Terry A Hurlbut@Temlakos

October 07, 2023

Extinctionism – older than you think

Elon Musk occasionally likes to highlight a particular person or issue that concerns him, by posting about it on X. With one hundred fifty-nine million followers, he can make that person or issue “go viral” with a single post. Today he left two posts, on a subject that has concerned him for well over a year: extinctionism. Indeed he went so far as to say that extinctionism is the real ideological threat to humanity.

Extinctionism – what is it, and who actively propounds it?

Extinctionism means seeking the extinction of the human race. Even that concept, as extreme as it sounds, encompasses a broad spectrum of ways to achieve that end. Elon Musk highlighted one of them in his two posts:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1710394306572251409

Les U. Knight founded the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, abbreviated VHEMT (pronounced Vehement, “because that’s what we are,” says Knight.) Its method is simple: let all human beings abstain from reproduction. Thus the human race would die off by simple attrition. If everyone adopted that ...

Terry A Hurlbut@Temlakos

January 16, 2025

Ceasefire deal – but will it last?

Yesterday, the State of Israel, and the effective government of Gaza, reached a ceasefire agreement. No one knows yet whether this will end the Fourth Arab-Israeli War. Nor does the world know how many hostages that nominal government will reach. But despite attempts by the Biden administration to claim credit, everyone else acknowledges the Trump Effect in bringing it about. In short, had Trump lost his reelection, the world would not now be having this conversation.

What is in that ceasefire deal?

Negotiations took place between the State of Israel and the Islamic Resistance Movement (Arabic Harakah al-Muqāwamah al-Islāmiyyah, abbreviated HAMAS). The Emirate of Qatar, which has played host to HAMAS leaders for years, played host to the negotiations as well. The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews broke a hint on Monday (January 13). They got their hint from The Times of Israel, who in turn cited (but did not link to) Reuters.

Not everyone in Israel was happy with any deal. Bezelel Smotrich, head of the Religious Zionism Party, said it would be a catastrophe. Nevertheless, the deal seemed to be going through the next day, according to Newsmax.

Yesterday, CNN broke the story of a finished ceasefire agreement. CNN maintained one live-update page, then started another one this morning. Another report came in from Jewish Insider. As Charlotte Hazard reported on Just the News, President-elect Donald Trump announced the deal on Truth Social:

WE HAVE A DEAL FOR THE HOSTAGES IN THE MIDDLE EAST. THEY WILL BE RELEASED SHORTLY. THANK YOU!

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/113833442957238587

Shortly thereafter, Trump offered greater detail:

This EPIC ceasefire agreement could have only happened as a result of our Historic Victory in November, as it signaled to the entire World that my Administration would seek Peace and negotiate deals to ensure the safety of all Americans, and our Allies. I am thrilled American and Israeli hostages will be returning home to be reunited with their families and loved ones.

With this deal in place, my National Security team, through the efforts of Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, will continue to work closely with Israel and our Allies to make sure Gaza NEVER again becomes a terrorist safe haven. We will continue promoting PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH throughout the region, as we build upon the momentum of this ceasefire to further expand the Historic Abraham Accords. This is only the beginning of great things to come for America, and indeed, the World!

We have achieved so much without even being in the White House. Just imagine all of the wonderful things that will happen when I return to the White House, and my Administration is fully confirmed, so they can secure more Victories for the United States!

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/113833531533520804

HAMAS evidently tried to change the agreement at the last minute, concerning deployment of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops in the Philadelphi Corridor. That didn’t last.

Due to the strong insistence of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Hamas folded on its last-minute demand to change the deployment of IDF forces in the Philadelphi Corridor. However, several items in the framework have yet to be finalized; we hope that the details will be finalized tonight.

https://x.com/KassyAkiva/status/1879601485626892722

The Jerusalem Post contained the best statement of what the deal provides:

Phase 1:

* 33 hostages released; none confirmed deceased.

* IDF begins staged withdrawal, keeping a Gaza security perimeter.

* Terrorists with life sentences released, excluding October 7 “Nukhba” fighters.

* Lasts 42 days; some IDF presence in the Philadelphi corridor.

Phase 2:

* Talks on more hostage releases and further IDF withdrawals start on day 16.

* Security protocols for Palestinian returnees to northern Gaza.

Phase 3:

* All hostages released; IDF withdraws fully only after their freedom.

The “returnees” are residents of the northern Gaza Strip, who fled south as the IDF invaded.

Details, and disputes over credit claims

Those 33 hostages are all women, children, men over 50, and younger men considered “humanitarian cases.” In exchange, HAMAS gets back 2000 “convicted terrorists,” including 250 serving life sentences, and 1000 prisoners-of-war. But Israel will not release anyone who took part in the atrocities of October 7, 2023. The Post estimates that HAMAS now holds 98 hostages – or as many as still live.

President Biden tried to claim credit:

At long last, I can announce that a ceasefire and a hostage deal has been reached between Israel and Hamas.

https://x.com/POTUS/status/1879635997673009302

The road to this deal has not been easy.

I have worked in foreign policy for decades – this has been one of the toughest negotiations I have ever experienced.

And we have reached this point because of the pressure that Israel built on Hamas backed by the United States.

https://x.com/POTUS/status/1879643481078895059

The elements of the ceasefire and hostage deal is what I laid out in detail this past May – which was embraced by countries around the world.

I’m deeply satisfied this day has finally come, for the sake of the people of Israel and the sake of the families of hostages waiting in agony. And for the sake of innocent people in Gaza who have suffered unimaginable devastation.

https://x.com/POTUS/status/1879640359841763425

A reporter asked President Biden who deserved credit for the ceasefire agreement – him, or Trump. Biden snapped, “Is that a joke?”

https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1879609312332624276

Later, the State Department admitted that Trump and his team were “absolutely critical” to arranging it.

https://x.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1879623095696199987

Mohammed Al-Khulaifi, Minister of State in Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, also gave Trump full credit. In fact, according to The Western Journal, another Arab official said Trump and his team

did more for a hostage deal in a single meeting than the Biden administration did in a year.

Analysis

The key man turned out to be Steve Witkoff, nominated as Special Envoy to the Middle East. Even Mr. Witkoff’s boss hasn’t taken office yet – and already his team can claim a diplomatic triumph.

Geraldo Rivera said Trump “closed the deal” by “scaring the h@ll out of everybody.”

Having said that, this deal will definitely not please everyone. Of the 98 hostages still unaccounted for, perhaps 60 remain alive. The 33 set for earliest release apparently include those holding American citizenship. Maybe the world can hope these are still alive.

Any released hostage, many will count as a gain. As for HAMAS convicts and prisoners, Israel might regard them as weeds. Pull one up, and another takes his place.

But already at least one patriotic Israeli is upset with Trump over this deal. Avi Abelow, writing in Arutz-7, wonders what Trump is thinking. He says Israel gave up far too much – unless Trump had in mind preventing a worse action by Biden in his final days in office. That could indeed be the problem, because President Biden has been taking many actions Trump will have to reverse. Was Biden planning to bad-mouth Israel at the United Nations? The world will likely never know.

On the other hand, shrill voices on the left aren’t happy, either – as long as Israel still exists.

You pontificate about a free press! I am asking questions after being told by Matt Miller that he will not answer my questions! Criminal! Why aren’t you in The Hague! Why aren’t you in The Hague! Why aren’t you in The Hague!

https://x.com/willy_lowry/status/1879930156644811084

300 reported in Gaza on the receiving end of your bombs! Why did you keep the bombs flowing when we had a deal in May? We all knew we had a deal! Everyone in this room knew we had a deal, Tony and you kept the bombs flowing!

Why did you sacrifice the rules-based order on the mantle of your commitment to Zionism? Why did you allow my friends to be massacred? Why did you allow my friends homes in Gaza to be destroyed when we had a deal in May! You helped destroy our religion, Judaism by associating it with Fascism! You waved the white flag before Netanyahu! You waved the white flag before Israeli fascism!

Your father-in-law was an Israel lobbyist! And your grandfather was an Israel lobbyist! Are you compromised by Israel? Why did you allow the Holocaust of our time to happen? How does it feel to have your legacy be genocide? How does it feel for your legacy to be genocide?

You, too, Matt [Miller]! You smirked through the whole thing! Every day, you smirked through the genocide!

Max Blumenthal

https://x.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1879926469633487204

Surely the victims of October 7, 2023 would most emphatically disagree with both those men.

Link to:

The article:

https://cnav.news/2025/01/16/editorial/talk/ceasefire-deal-last/

Video:

Truths and posts:

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/113833442957238587

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/113833531533520804

https://x.com/KassyAkiva/status/1879601485626892722

https://x.com/POTUS/status/1879635997673009302

https://x.com/POTUS/status/1879643481078895059

https://x.com/POTUS/status/1879640359841763425

https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1879609312332624276

https://x.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1879623095696199987

Live-update pages:

https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/israel-hamas-gaza-ceasefire-hostages-01-15-24/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/israel-hamas-gaza-ceasefire-hostages-01-16-24

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/2025-01-13/live-updates-837303?page=2

Video: Geraldo Rivera’s remarks:

Avi Abelow’s commentary:

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/402378

Two far-left voices:

https://x.com/willy_lowry/status/1879930156644811084

https://x.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1879926469633487204

Declarations of Truth:

https://x.com/DecTruth

Declarations of Truth Locals Community:

https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/

Conservative News and Views:

https://cnav.news/

Clixnet Media

https://clixnet.com/

Read full Article

Terry A Hurlbut@Temlakos

January 14, 2025

Is Zuckerberg sincere?

The first full week of January saw some extraordinary activity in the social-media space. Naturally the TikTok Ban Case provided an end-of-the-week distraction. But even earlier, Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Meta (formerly Facebook), announced a significant retreat from wholesale user censorship. Lately he has been “ratting out” the leftist establishment and especially the Biden administration, saying they “made him do it.” Is he sincere? How far can or should users trust him? And why didn’t he, who had many more resources than other social media CNAV could name, fight that establishment as hard as they have done and have been doing?

What Mark Zuckerberg recently declared

Mary Holland, CEO of Children’s Health Defense, carefully chronicles the steps Zuckerberg took last week. He made two major changes:

Appointing Dana White, head of Ultimate Fighting Championships (UFC), to Meta’s Board of Directors, and
Discontinuing third-party fact-checking on Meta’s platforms, planning to implement X-style Community Notes instead.

He also announced another change that could be cosmetic only: moving Meta’s headquarters from California to Texas.

This actually is his long-delayed follow-up to his confession, in August 2024, that Meta had engaged in censorship of Americans. He made this confession in writing to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mark Zuckerberg just admitted three things:

1. Biden-Harris Admin "pressured" Facebook to censor Americans.

2. Facebook censored Americans.

3. Facebook throttled the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Big win for free speech.

https://x.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1828201780544504064

Zuckerberg pleaded that the Biden administration had coerced his company. That plea rang hollow then. Zuckerberg has been involved in leftist politics for years, and Facebook always supported it. Furthermore, he cannot claim Biden administration coercion for the “Zuckerbucks” affair, that put Joe Biden into the White House.

Conservative activists, like education activist Rebecca Friedrichs, said, “Prove it!” She had a point. In addition to the activities Facebook championed, and the harm they did to children, Ms. Friedrichs lost her personal Facebook account the very day after Zuckerberg’s written confession became public. Other skeptics heaped similar scorn on the Meta head, and everyone frankly forgot about his “confession” in a few weeks.

Now here we are again, with changes that could be more than cosmetic. One thing above all has changed since the last go-round of confessions: the reelection of Donald J. Trump.

Ample grounds for skepticism

Mary Holland detailed her own problems with Meta in her essay. Children’s Health Defense is still suing Meta, a lawsuit they filed in 2020 in San Francisco. The San Francisco District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have both dismissed CHD’s claim. CHD has now filed a petition for review, docketed only yesterday. Children’s Health Defense v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Docket No. 24-732.

On January 9, Zuckerberg appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience, explaining his often tempestuous relationships with the Biden administration.

The Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft and Cullen Linebarger have details. The Meta CEO began with some of the same things he said in his letter to Chairman Jordan last year. Then he talked specifically about censorship in regards to the coronavirus, and its immunization preparations. Zuckerberg protested that “people in the Biden administration” pressured Meta to take down true statements about “vaccine” side effects. Indeed, administration officials were screaming and cursing over the telephone to make sure Meta understood what the administration wanted.

HOLY SHLIT. Mark Zuckerberg says the Biden admin called his employees and “screamed and cursed” at them to take down Covid/vaccine content. They wanted Meta to censor memes too. When he pushed back, the Biden regime started investigating his companies. “It was brutal.”

https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1877785122314875330

Rogan listened patiently – until Zuckerberg suggested that coronavirus immunization was a good thing. Rogan did not agree.

Zuckerberg: I think…they (the Biden regime) were doing something. Their goal to get everyone vaccinated was actually a good goal…

Rogan: Yeah, it was a good goal if it worked…if it really did prevent people from getting COVID, from infecting others. But it didn’t, so it wasn’t a good deal.

The Vigilant Fox dropped a thirteen-post thread offering further detailed transcripts of the interview, beginning with this post:

Joe Rogan Shuts Down Mark Zuckerberg’s Bogus Claim About COVID

Mark Zuckerberg’s attempt to rebrand himself as a free speech absolutist seemed to be working—until he made this fatal error at the end.

🧵 THREAD

https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/1877857704384807055

Steve Bannon, who recently got out of prison after serving a contempt sentence, directly accused Zuckerberg of insincerity.

Zuckerberg, you’re one of the worst people in this country. We are not going to turn this country back over to you nerds.

https://rumble.com/embed/v65si0y/?pub=4teej

In addition to obvious vindication, Bannon seeks a criminal investigation of the Election of 2020.

Other changes, and reaction from the left

Zuckerberg will clearly have to come totally clean if he expects to keep his fortune – or even his liberty. He has made three other changes at Meta that have enraged the left:

Removing feminine hygiene products from men’s restrooms at Meta office buildings (sorry, Alphabet Soupers),
Discontinuing all Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives in hiring, and
Firing Sir Nicholas Clegg, Knight Bachelor, as President for Global Affairs, and replacing him with Republican Joel Kaplan. Kaplan once served as Deputy White House Chief of Staff in the Bush Younger administration.

His Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex expressed “concern,” i.e., outrage, according to The Gateway Pundit and The Daily Wire. He and his wife the Duchess – the former Meghan Markle – protested Zuckerberg’s moves in a lengthy statement that began thus:

It doesn’t matter whether your views are left, right or somewhere in between—the latest news from Meta about changes to their policies directly undermines free speech.

This should deeply concern us all.

Contrary to the company’s talking points, allowing more abuse and normalizing hate speech serves to silence speech and expression, not foster it.

False, on two levels. First, what constitutes “abuse” or “hate speech”? The Duke doesn’t say. But most important, as the world heard during oral argument in TikTok v. Garland, the best remedy for bad speech is counter-speech. When cry-bullies can scream to the moderators to get a take-down of anything with which they disagree, free speech suffers.

Worse than that screed is Joe Biden’s incredible reaction to Zuckerberg’s repudiation of him:

BREAKING: Biden rips Mark Zuckerberg's decision to get rid of biased fact checkers on Meta for a "Community Notes" model, goes on a pro-censorship tirade.

"It's really shameful."

"I find it to be just contrary to American justice. Telling the truth matters! [...] "You think it doesn't matter? They let millions of people read things that are simply not true? It's completely contrary to what America is all about."

"The idea that a billionaire can buy something and say, from this point on, we're not gonna fact check anything..."

https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1877858351121346992

Behold Mr. President Divider. He, who once gave a poor imitation of Cicero against Catiline, now issues a pathetic whine that no one will respect his authority anymore.

What about Zuckerberg?

Mark Zuckerberg likely has one motive: the Trump Effect. Donald Trump first had an effect on him by surviving an attempt on his life and making a defiant gesture. But Trump’s election decided the issue. Zuckerberg has much for which to answer, and to compensate. Mary Holland is right: it will take far more than moving staff to Texas, and every other step he has taken, to give an adequate answer and make an adequate recompense.

Add to it that James O’Keefe has clear evidence that Meta/Facebook were willing participants in the censorship regime. This was happening even during the First Trump Administration. Mr. O’Keefe released a link to that evidence this morning.

NEW ZUCKERBERG TAPES: LEAKED AUDIO of Rockefeller Foundation Staff Reveals Facebook’s $500K Ad Credit Scheme to Boost Biden-Aligned COVID Health Narratives.

“More to come, just trying to get all the freebies from tech!”

“We negotiated $100,000 ad credits per pilot city… We also got ad credits for Governor Cuomo.”

“Keep a running tab of the number of free ads you've unlocked… That'd be a fun stat!”

https://x.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1879020072305336593

True, even the steps Zuckerberg has taken, have incurred the out-of-control rage of many on the left. President Biden’s reaction lends some credence to the Meta CEO’s account of administration staff screaming and cursing over the telephone. But it could merely represent resentment that Meta has broken ranks.

Did Zuckerberg take these steps of last week because he somehow knew what James O’Keefe would reveal today? Even without that, he couldn’t deny his history, which actually goes back to the Obama administration.

Besides, look at what Elon Musk did. Or Andrew Torba, who actually built his own server farm. All this is reason enough not to trust Mr. Zuckerberg, and to decamp from Facebook and repair instead to X, Gab, Rumble, BitChute, Brighteon, and similarly motivated platforms.

Link to:

The article:

https://cnav.news/2025/01/14/editorial/talk/zuckerberg-sincere/

Video:

Mary Holland’s essay:

https://cnav.news/2025/01/11/accountability/judicial/meta-censored-court/

The written confession:

https://x.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1828201780544504064

CHD v. Meta before the Supreme Court:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-732.html

Video: Joe Rogan interviews Mark Zuckerberg:

Libs of TikTok quote:

https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1877785122314875330

The Vigilant Fox thread:

https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/1877857704384807055

Video: Bannon War Room on Zuckerberg:

Statement of TRHs the Duke/Duchess of Sussex:

https://sussex.com/fact-checking-meta/

Eric Daugherty quotes Biden:

https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1877858351121346992

James O’Keefe’s latest revelation:

https://x.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1879020072305336593

Declarations of Truth:

https://x.com/DecTruth

Declarations of Truth Locals Community:

https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/

Conservative News and Views:

https://cnav.news/

Clixnet Media

https://clixnet.com/

Read full Article

Terry A Hurlbut@Temlakos

January 13, 2025

Wither TikTok?

On Friday morning, lawyers for the social medium TikTok, and for one of its users, made their respective cases before the United States Supreme Court. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar similarly made the government’s case. At time of writing, the Supreme Court has not yet issued any orders in these cases. If they issue no orders by Sunday, January 19, TikTok goes dark – though for how long, is anyone’s guess. At least one commentator expects the Court to affirm the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ affirmation of applicable law. CNAV does not share that assessment. The Court has left no resultant clue to its decision – a decision that might cut across ideological and bloc lines.

The Middle Kingdom problem

TikTok, with 170 American user accounts, is a subsidiary of ByteDance – a Chinese firm. As a Chinese firm, it is subject to government orders to share confidential user data. Frankly, such sharing means the effective “doxxing” of TikTok users to the intelligence apparatus of the People’s Republic of China.

In fact, CNAV believes the most useful policy here is to refer to China by its real name as it translates into English: the Middle Kingdom. Ever since (as seems most probable to a “creationist”) Noah traveled to the Far East to found new nations, leaving his sons Shem, Ham and Japheth behind to found what became all nations west of what became China (or Serica as the Romans called it), this Middle Kingdom has had world imperial ambitions. That they never realized them is likely due to the systematic invasions by the Mongols early in their history. But the Japanese traditionally regarded the Middle Kingdom as their enemy. Indeed the Japanese almost destroyed that Kingdom – except that they had

awakened [the] sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.

Which sleeping giant then destroyed Japan’s ability to wage imperial war.

But when the Middle Kingdom adopted Communism, it adopted a ready-made rationale for world-conquering ambition. They never let that go. That they didn’t complete the conquest in concert with the Soviet Union is because that polity had a falling-out with the Middle Kingdom as to which of the two would be boss of the world.

What this has to do with TikTok

Today the Soviet Union is no more. In its place is a civilizational state – the Russian Federation – whose alliance with the Middle Kingdom is uneasy at best. When two civilizational states abut one another, trouble might start.

The Middle Kingdom has carefully crafted policies that will lead to increased control throughout the rest of the world. Nor would its leaders limit this control to its cross-border and next-closest neighbors. China exercises this control in two salient ways today:

The Belt and Road Initiative, a program of constructing infrastructure under their control, and
Social media. That’s where ByteDance and its American subsidiary, TikTok, come in.

America ceased to be a civilizational state when it got involved n the Two World Wars. In the process it accepted the internationalism of Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt – and especially Alger Hiss, chief architect of the United Nations. But Donald J. Trump wants to make America a civilizational state. Inevitably that will conflict with the Middle Kingdom’s plans.

In April 2024, the House of Representatives passed a law to forbid a social medium to have “foreign adversarial” control. That, of course, means TikTok. Unless TikTok parent ByteDance sells the company, it may no longer operate. Twenty-five Republicans (all good conservatives) and thirty-three Democrats voted against it – but of course 186 Republicans and 174 Democrats voted for it. Eight days later, ByteDance said flatly that TikTok is not for sale.

In the courts

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed this new law last December. TikTok filed a petition for review; the Supreme Court granted it. Also, one Brian Firebaugh led a group of fellow TikTok users to file their own petition. The Court granted that, too, and consolidated these two cases for oral argument. TikTok v. Garland, docket 24-656, and Firebaugh v. Garland, docket 24-657. Firebaugh and his friends have also applied for an injunction against the law; that application is still pending. The Court said it would defer consideration of that application until after they heard oral argument. Firebaugh v. Garland, Application No. 24A588.

The American CEO of TikTok met with President-elect Donald Trump on December 16 at Trump’s Mar-A-Lago club. Two days after Christmas, Trump, through lawyer D. John Sauer, filed a friend-of-the-court brief. It says in effect:

Don’t let this law take effect until I become President; I might be able to resolve this when in office.

Trump is arguing that Congress has encroached on executive authority, and that:

The Case presents novel, difficult and significant First Amendment questions.

The problem for TikTok is that they have the same history of banning conservatives that Facebook had. (Or Twitter, before Elon Musk bought it.) For them to claim free-speech protection, strikes many as hypocritical. Some of those people would, of course, like TikTok to restore their accounts – as is eminently reasonable.

Is TikTok a spy nest?

Tim Chapman, of Advancing American Freedom, takes the espionage threat seriously. His group filed their own friend-of-the-court brief making that case. Chapman states the problem very simply:

The Chinese Communist Party sets “an extremely high priority” on “accessing Americans’ data.”
Last December, the Middle Kingdom’s espionage unit cracked into nine American firms in Operation Salt Typhoon. This would allow that espionage unit to record telephone conversations at will.
ByteDance is required by Chinese law to spy on its customers when, as, and if the intelligence apparatus demands.

The oral argument

The Supreme Court held oral argument for two hours and thirty-eight minutes. As is its custom, the Court published transcript and sound recording of the argument session.

The law at issue is called the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. TikTok asserted throughout that this Act is a content-based act – and worse, a thinly disguised bill of attainder. (Bills of attainder single out specific individuals or entities for special punishment or other sanction under the law.)

The government’s real target, rather, is the speech itself, its fear that Americans, even if fully informed, could be persuaded by Chinese misinformation. That, however, is a decision that the First Amendment leaves to the people.

By long-standing custom, the Court let Justice Clarence Thomas ask the first questions. From the start he identified the real target: not TikTok per se, but its beneficial and controlling owner, ByteDance. TikTok’s lawyers said that made no difference – that the government could never force a sale.

Chief Justice John Roberts continued in that same vein, identifying the salient issue Tim Chapman described.

[A]re we supposed to ignore the fact that the ultimate parent is, in fact, subject to doing intelligence work for the Chinese government?

Said TikTok’s lawyers: true, but not relevant; the government still lacks any authority to act. But he also disputed the scope and tightness of ByteDance’ control of TikTok. Worse yet, he made this absurd statement:

Let's suppose that the Chinese government had actually taken [Jeff Bezos’] children hostage and it was using that leverage in order to force Bezos and the Washington Post [which Bezos owns] to publish whatever they wanted on the front page of the Post. So China effectively has total control. I still don't think that Congress could come in and tell Bezos either sell the Post or shut it down because that would violate Bezos's rights and the Washington Post's rights. Maybe what they could do is come in and say you need to disclose the fact that you're under this amount of coercion so that the people who are looking at the paper understand it and can make their own assessment. But I think the First Amendment rights of both Bezos and the Post would be directly implicated, notwithstanding that China, in that scenario, has effectively total control over what gets printed in the Washington Post.

That proved too much even for Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Even when reading a dry transcript, one can hear her gasp:

So you think in that situation that the only thing the government could do is tell the Washington Post: Disclose to the public that you are saying this because you are being forced to?

Similarly, Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed to a long history of prevention of foreign ownership or control of American media. Counsel said that was in the context of bandwidth scarcity, and did not apply in a post-scarcity environment.

No solace

TikTok got no solace from the Originalists, either. Justice Neil Gorsuch especially criticized TikTok for disputing that ByteDance could tell TikTok what to do. TikTok also denied that ByteDance had ordered the platform to censor voices in other countries.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed concern about manipulation of the “content recommendation algorithm” without any disclosure to the user. Because such orders must come from the Middle Kingdom’s officers, that expresses another concern by observers concerned with human freedom. Again TikTok seemed to be saying that the foreign ownership or control made no difference. Justice Elena Kagan expressed her own incredulity at that posture.

Eventually Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had her chance to speak. She observed that the Court has heard other cases concerning ownership and control by foreign governments, and “terrorist organizations.” The Court has upheld such laws in those cases.

Thus TikTok could claim no solace from Originalists, Liberals – or the Institutionalists, perhaps a better name for “the Moderate Bloc.” All three came down on the company for ignoring or setting at naught the question of foreign ownership or control. They also took note that the company saw fit to dispute the facts about the degree of control ByteDance has. Their argument strained credulity – and without exception, every Justice of the Supreme Court said so.

From TikTok to its creators

Next, the lawyer for the users took the stage. He said the Act restricts the opportunities of users to talk to foreign users if they wanted to. The Justices identified several problems with that argument:

Congress concerned itself with a foreign actor – ByteDance – taking orders from the intelligence apparatus of a foreign adversary. Never once did Congress threaten any user with criminal penalties.
Why should any user feel a burden because one particular platform was no longer available? And:
Would not another platform, under U.S. or at least non-adversarial ownership, arise to fill any void that a shutdown of TikTok would create?

The government’s case

At last, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar presented the government’s case. She opened by articulating two threats that TikTok, under ByteDance, poses:

Harvesting of user data, thus creating dossiers on its American users (and even non-user contacts), and
Manipulating the algorithm to promote content favorable to the Middle Kingdom and unfavorable to its enemies.

If only ByteDance would sell TikTok, those threats would go away. But, no!

To their credit, the Justices tested Ms. Prelogar’s arguments just as strictly as they did the arguments of petitioners’ counsel. For example:

What is the difference between covert and non-covert manipulation (from Justice Thomas)?
What exactly does “covert manipulation” mean (from Justice Kagan)?
How does TikTok’s manipulation differ from those at, say, X, Bluesky, and the search engines (from Kagan)?
Why shouldn’t the Court deem the government’s position an unacceptably paternalistic one (from Justice Gorsuch)?
How different are social media companies from news media with their editorial boards (from Gorsuch)?
Why can’t the Court issue the stay for which the Firebaugh user group applied, or an administrative stay? This came from Justice Alito.
What authority has any President to decide what laws he would or would not enforce (from Justice Sotomayor)?

Rebuttal

Tellingly, TikTok’s counsel suggested the company could accept a law forbidding it to share sensitive user data “up the chain.” Even so, he asserted that other social media harvest the same kinds of data. Then he asserted that a mere risk disclosure should suffice to protect the interests of individual Americans.

Finally, the lawyer suggested that the Court absolutely had the authority to stay the law. They could stay it in response to the Firebaugh application (already on record), or administratively. An administrative stay is a stay for a court’s own benefit. Surely the lawyer knew that President-elect Trump had filed a brief asking for any kind of stay, to permit him to act.

The company’s case is simple: under the First Amendment, they have the right to do anything they please, subject to its users’ rights and reasonable expectations, and the exercise of informed consent merely by opening an account.

Analysis

Obviously the Originalists, the Institutionalists, and the Liberals do not have obviously different opinions about this case. They tested the arguments both of the petitioners and of the government. The Justices came down especially hard on the petitioners for ignoring, minimizing, or dismissing as immaterial the national security risk of running a social medium with foreign adversarial ownership. Indeed TikTok asserted that the government couldn’t even act in the face of kidnap. That’s the most absurd proposition anyone ever advanced at oral argument before the Supreme Court – or any court. (Although why Ms. Prelogar did not see fit to introduce the prior history of Middle Kingdom spying, is not clear.)

For her part, Ms. Prelogar denied that the Court had the authority to stay the law as the users requested. The court would have to find “likelihood of prevailing on the merits,” which the government denies. But she admitted that the Court could apply an administrative stay.

This morning the Court issued a sixteen-page Order List, which contained no orders relevant to these consolidated cases. Messrs. Firebaugh et al. have a stay application on record. So the Court would have to say something, even if only, “The application for stay is denied.”

What should happen to TikTok?

So CNAV stands on its earlier assertion: the Court has given no reliable indication on what it will decide. They could stay the law, for one reason or another, and give a President Trump authority to act.

But neither CNAV nor your editor has accounts at TikTok, for the precise reasons Ms. Prelogar and Mr. Chapman raise. CNAV would never expect favorable treatment by TikTok, given their prior history of censorship. Add to it that the Middle Kingdom would love to create dossiers to enable it to:

Abduct and forcibly “repatriate” dissidents out of America and back to the Mainland,
Lay “honey traps” and otherwise harass or “discredit” American citizens who dare criticize the Middle Kingdom or expose its aims,
Continue to infiltrate into this country, countless young men of military age,
Promote clearly anti-civilizational values like Alphabet Soup-ism and anti-natalism, and
Otherwise “soften America up” for invasion and conquest, since they can’t transport troops in strength to “hit the beaches.”

Under these circumstances, CNAV would, if it had the ear of the President, encourage the President to shut the platform down, if he had to, by reason of Middle Kingdom ownership of ByteDance alone. This need not hurt anyone; another platform could arise, if X or Rumble couldn’t service user needs.

Indeed, neither side presented a good argument, though Ms. Prelogar had not as bad an argument as did her adversaries. So all we can do, is watch and wait.

Link to:

The article:

https://cnav.news/2025/01/13/news/wither-tiktok/

Video: