Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Opinion

The American Experiment Has Gone Down In Flames

Published

7 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By CRAIG STANFILL

 

What are we to do about it?

In the late eighteenth century, a group of unusually enlightened men gathered to plot rebellion against the most powerful military power of the day. Their grievances were many, set down in the Declaration of Independence. This storied document was many things, but above all it was a cry of rebellion against tyranny: against the arbitrary, capricious and unwelcome rule of the English over the colonies. It was a cry for liberty.

Against all odds, their rebellion succeeded and, a few years later, they met once again to devise a form of government that would be strong enough to see to those things that only government can do, such as military defense and the enablement of trade between the states. They were, however, leery of the dangers of tyranny, and so they crafted a unique form of government: a federal republic, with power dispersed among the several states, and numerous checks and balances to prevent abuse.

It was a noble experiment, and it served us well for centuries, but it is essential that we understand that this experiment has now failed in its primary purpose: to secure our liberties and to forestall tyrannical rule.

The evidence of this failure is indisputable to anyone with eyes to see. Unelected bureaucrats can impose their will on the citizenry in a way that so far exceeds the arbitrary and capricious rule of the English as to stagger the imagination.

They are imposing upon us regulations to all but outlaw vehicles powered by fossil fuels. They have decreed that a woman can become a man, and a man can become a woman, with utter disregard for biological reality.

They have colluded with the internet oligarchs to censor dissent and to silence their political opponents. They are using the mechanisms of law enforcement to protect their friends and to persecute their enemies.

The intelligence services are spying on Americans, and the FBI looks more and more like the secret police with every passing day. I am afraid of my government; I fear the knock on the door in the middle of the night. The grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence look trifling by comparison.

If the Democrats get their way, it will get even worse. They have made it clear that they intend to undo the system of checks and balances that have kept tyrants at bay for centuries. They will eliminate the Senate filibuster.

They will pack the Supreme Court and turn it into something like the Soviet Politburo, an organ of political power unaccountable to the people with absolute authority over every aspect of life. They will continue to push for non-citizen voting rights, allowing millions of illegal immigrants to vote in key local and state elections.

And, perhaps worst of all, power will be further centralized in Washington under the Democrats, who will willingly crackdown on local and state governments that don’t adopt their left-wing vision. In short, a form of absolute tyranny will be established.

Our constitution was designed to prevent this from happening. It is time for us to recognize that our experiment in self-rule has failed, and that we must do something about it before it is too late.

How did we get here? It all starts with federal money. Money is, and always has been, a profoundly corrupting influence in government. This has been true throughout history, going back to the Romans and even before.

Money is power. Money is control. Money gives you the ability to reward your friends and punish your enemies. Federal money has become a lever used by the bureaucrats to impose their will on state and local government, emasculating the federal system.

The Biden administration is giving away trillions of dollars in public funds to support its allies and to buy votes with the money they’ve taken from us. But no matter how many trillions of dollars they fritter away, it’s never enough, and they are on the verge of spending the country into bankruptcy. The system they have constructed will inevitably collapse, and take us down with it.

What then shall we do? How can we reclaim our lost freedom and save ourselves from the coming tyranny?

To do this, we need to be as bold as our opposition. They have stated that the American system is to be burned to the ground and replaced with something new. I agree, in part. Yes, burn it to the ground — but replace it instead with something old: the Federal Republic the founders intended us to have. This will require a massive — and I mean massive — reduction in the size and the scope of the government, and a return to its stated purpose, as eloquently laid out in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

This, and no more.

Craig W. Stanfill (@craigwstanfill) is a computer scientist, software entrepreneur, and the author of the AI Dystopia science fiction series.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Censorship Industrial Complex

Joe Rogan Responds To YouTube Censorship of Trump Interview

Published on

From Reclaim The Net

By

Joe Rogan has accused YouTube of making it difficult for users to find his recent interview with former President Donald Trump, saying that the platform initially only displayed short clips from mainstream media instead of the full episode. Rogan sarcastically remarked on YouTube’s actions, saying, “I’m sure it was a mistake at YouTube where you couldn’t search for it. Yeah. I’m sure it was a mistake. It’s just a mistake.”

In episode 2200, Rogan explained that even though his team contacted YouTube multiple times, the episode remained difficult to find. X CEO Elon Musk intervened, contacting Spotify CEO Daniel Ek about the issue. (Spotify exclusively licenses The Joe Rogan Experience but allows the show on third-party platforms like YouTube.)

Watch the video clip here.

Rogan noted the explosive viewership once the content was available, with the episode racking up “six and a half million views on mine and eight plus million on his.”

Emphasizing the episode’s broad reach, Rogan expressed frustration with the initial suppression, stating, “You can’t suppress shit. It doesn’t work. This is the internet. This is 2024. People are going to realize what you’re doing.” He pointed to the significance of this episode’s reach, asking, “If one show has 36 million downloads in two days, like that’s not trending? Like what’s trending for you? Mr. Beast?”

Describing the power of YouTube’s algorithmic influence, Rogan claimed the algorithm worked against the interview’s visibility, only showing clips instead of the full conversation. According to him, when YouTube initially fixed the issue, users had to enter highly specific keywords, like “Joe Rogan Trump interview,” to find the episode.

Rogan argued that YouTube’s gatekeeping reflected an ideological stance, remarking, “They hate it because ideologically they’re opposed to the idea of him being more popular.” He suggested that major tech platforms, such as YouTube and Facebook, which hold significant influence, often push agendas that favor specific narratives, stating, “They didn’t like that this one was slipping away. And so they did something.”

In a telling moment, Rogan noted the impact of the initial suppression, explaining how “the interactions…dropped off a cliff because people couldn’t find it.” He claimed that this caused viewers either to give up or settle for short clips, leading to a dip in views before the episode gained traction on Spotify and X.

 

Continue Reading

Opinion

Trudeau and Singh Scheme to Delay Election, Secure Payouts on the Taxpayer’s Dime

Published on

Let’s get real about what’s going on in Canada right now. In the Meeting No. 130 PROC – Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on Bill C-65, Justin Trudeau and his Liberal minions, backed by their trusty NDP sidekicks, are pushing forward a so-called “reform” to delay Canada’s next election. Their excuse? They’re “making voting more inclusive.” But the real reason? To buy themselves a cushy retirement at your expense.

Here’s the scheme: Trudeau and his Liberal-NDP alliance want to push the election back by a week. Not to secure democracy, not to make voting accessible, but to guarantee that MPs who were elected in 2019 get their golden parachute—hitting that magic six-year mark to cash in on their pensions. They’re wrapping it all up in talk about “accessibility” and “inclusivity,” but the facts laid out in committee make it clear—this is nothing more than a taxpayer-funded jackpot for Trudeau’s coalition. It’s like watching a heist in slow motion, and the people pulling it off are your elected officials.

Let’s break down the facts: Bill C-65 is presented as a way to make voting “inclusive” by moving the election from October 20 to October 27 to avoid overlapping with Diwali. Really? Suddenly the Trudeau government is all about Diwali? When did Justin Trudeau become the defender of every cultural holiday? If that were true, they’d be calling a snap election to get back to Canadians sooner, not later. But this isn’t about inclusivity; it’s about squeezing the system dry for every penny they can get.

Conservative MP Eric Duncan and Bloc MP Marie-Hélène Gaudreau saw right through it. They grilled Trudeau’s Privy Council Office (PCO) witnesses, who came armed with vague talking points but no real answers. The obvious question: Why push the election back when we already have advance polling? The answer? Crickets. The PCO’s representatives mumbled about “scheduling challenges” and “inclusivity,” but never explained why delaying the election is somehow the only solution.

And who’s standing right next to Trudeau in this scheme? The NDP. Trudeau’s favorite backup team, once again signing onto a shady deal to keep their coalition afloat. The NDP’s MP Daniel Blaikie was all in, rubber-stamping the date change. The reason? This move locks in the pensions not just for Liberals, but for their NDP buddies too. The whole thing reeks of backroom deals and mutual back-scratching. It’s a classic case of “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”—and Canadian taxpayers are left footing the bill.

In committee, Liberal MP Mark Gerretsen tried to play damage control, dismissing the pension concern as “Conservative scandal-mongering.” That’s right, folks: If you’re upset that your tax dollars are funding a Liberal-NDP pension scheme, Gerretsen says you’re the problem. He and his Liberal colleagues want you to believe that this bill is about “democracy.” But tell me, how democratic is it to change election dates so politicians can milk the system?

The Damning Parts of Bill C-65

So what are the most damning parts of Bill C-65? It’s a textbook case of self-serving political maneuvering. First, there’s the election date change itself—a convenient one-week delay that coincides perfectly with the deadline for MPs elected in 2019 to secure their pensions. This timing isn’t just suspicious; it’s blatant. With no other compelling reason, Trudeau’s Liberals are trying to sell the public on a delay that just happens to benefit their own pocketbooks. What’s even more shocking is that they’re hiding behind Diwali, as if Canadians can’t see right through it.

And the privacy implications? Almost completely glossed over. Bill C-65 falls flat on providing robust privacy protections. Instead, it opens the door for political parties to access voters’ sensitive data under a weak framework that offers minimal oversight. This is more than a missed opportunity; it’s an intentional sidestep to ensure politicians retain easy access to personal information for campaigning purposes.

Then there’s the lack of genuine accountability for foreign interference. Sure, they included some anti-interference provisions, but glaring loopholes remain. Leadership races and nomination contests are still fair game for foreign influence. The Liberals tout this bill as election protection, but when it comes to securing the integrity of the entire process, they’ve left the doors wide open.

Trudeau’s Swamp: When “Inclusivity” Is Just a Cover for Corruption

Let’s be clear about what’s happening here. Justin Trudeau’s government isn’t interested in protecting democracy; they’re interested in protecting their own pockets and political power. Bill C-65 is the latest swamp maneuver by a Liberal-NDP alliance that wants you to believe their motives are pure, cloaking a blatant cash grab under the guise of “inclusivity” and “accessibility.” But real inclusivity doesn’t need backroom deals or sudden election delays. Real inclusivity doesn’t make a mockery of Canadians’ intelligence by pretending a pension-padding scheme is about respecting religious holidays.

This is Trudeau’s swamp at its finest—sneaking in self-serving perks under the cover of high-minded ideals. By claiming they’re moving the election for “cultural sensitivity,” they’re hoping Canadians will overlook what’s really going on: a calculated effort to stretch their time in office just long enough to qualify for generous pensions. And Jagmeet Singh? He’s right there beside Trudeau in this scheme, securing his own taxpayer-funded future, while selling out the values he claims to stand for. This is a backroom deal that pays off for everyone except Canadian taxpayers, who get nothing but excuses and empty rhetoric.

And when opposition MPs raised these glaring issues—why Canadians are seeing no real electoral reforms or accountability—Trudeau’s team sidestepped, evaded, and downplayed. Even the so-called “anti-interference” measures fall flat, with loopholes so wide you could drive a truck through them. Foreign interference protections that ignore internal nomination contests? Privacy policies that allow political parties to dip into Canadians’ data with next to no oversight? It’s government overreach at best, outright negligence at worst, and yet they insist this is all about “democracy.”

If Trudeau’s government truly cared about protecting democracy, they wouldn’t be delaying elections to suit their pension schedules. They’d be calling an election to let Canadians decide who deserves to lead, right now. But they won’t do that because they know they’re losing the trust of Canadians, who are waking up to these games. They’d rather delay, manipulate, and cash in, hoping that enough time will make people forget this little “adjustment” to the election date.

This isn’t just political maneuvering; it’s a power grab. Trudeau and Singh are the faces of a swamp that puts self-interest before public service, personal gain before genuine leadership. They’re bending the rules to keep themselves and their allies comfortable, all while counting on Canadians to stay distracted. But Canadians are smarter than that, and they’re watching as this government dips into their wallets, lines their own pockets, and calls it “inclusivity.”

This is government corruption disguised as progressivism. This is your leadership in Canada today—when the very people elected to serve Canadians are the ones robbing them blind, hiding behind “woke” language to pull off their heist. Trudeau’s swamp doesn’t just run deep; it’s becoming the whole system. And every day they stay in power, they’re counting on Canadians to look the other way.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight . For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X