In Part 1 of this conversation with Real Unity host Sienna Mae Heath, Phillip and Sienna explore the intelligence behind morbid humor and the enduring charm of British wit in an increasingly tense cultural landscape. They dive into humor as a form of emotional release, a nervous system reset, and a powerful creative outlet—whether as activism or an escape from it. From politicized poetry scenes in the United States to comedy circles across the UK, this episode unpacks how laughter helps us process, connect, and push boundaries.

Stay tuned for Part 2.

Real Unity is also available as a podcast on your app of choice. Follow Sienna Mae Heath on Substack, Medium, and Instagram.

The post Morbid Humor is Most Intelligent | Phillip Carter | Ep 13 appeared first on Free the People.

“I dislike social commentary. Like… I really hate it. When I’m reading a book, I just want to be entertained, not preached at by the author. Plus, it ruins the wonder of the story if I know the author has a political or social axe to grind. I no longer speculate about all possible outcomes of the story because I know for a fact that the universe of that book will conspire to ensure that the author’s political agenda is validated. I hate that,” Weir said.

It’s understandable why this quote would attract attention and praise from moviegoers. In an era where politics is seemingly shoved down our throats at every opportunity, it’s refreshing to be permitted to enjoy entertainment for its own sake. Still, critics of Weir are quick to scoff, dismissing such attitudes as shallow and banal. Given the near-limitless set of problems faced by society, and indeed the world, the “all art is political” crowd find it lazy and irresponsible for artists to forsake their duty to serve as a mouthpiece for justice, tolerance, or whatever the cause du jour happens to be.

Weir’s point is well taken, and he’s basically right, but perhaps he could have phrased it a little better to avoid snobbish accusations of cretinism (assuming it’s even possible to avoid such things). By falling back on “I just want to be entertained” he’s opening himself up to criticism, as well as doing a disservice to the art form for which he has become so well known.

The fact is that there is rarely such a thing as “just” entertainment. While Weir’s comments may evoke images of slobbering couch potatoes mindlessly guffawing over an endless procession of garish colors and cartoon sound effects (at least in the minds of the self-appointed elite) this is not a fair characterization of quality entertainment or its effects on the viewer. Good books teach without being didactic; good shows have morals without being moralistic; good movies have something to say about society without bludgeoning the audience with political slogans. In short, social commentary need not be propagandistic.

The conflation of these two ideas seems to drive much of the discourse around modern mass media. One group of viewers complains that they dislike being lectured at, while the other group dismisses their concerns with accusations of stupidity, racism, misogyny, and homophobia. They imagine that the only reason someone could dislike TV shows whose only message is “girls rule and boys drool” must be an innate hatred of women, and the only reason not to want a superhero movie to turn into a PowerPoint presentation about global warming must be an attitude of anti-intellectualism. The mistake here is assuming that the only way to insert social commentary into a script is to do so in as condescending and ham-fisted a manner as possible.

What, then, is the difference between social commentary and propaganda? I would argue that the former contains universal truths that can be applied by the viewer to a variety of situations in the real world, while the latter imposes the author’s opinion rigidly onto the story, and demands that the audience accept this point of view in order to enjoy the work. I’m reminded of the words of author J.R.R. Tolkien in the foreword to the second edition of The Lord of the Rings, in which he complains about critics attempting to reduce his fantasy world to a narrow commentary on the atomic bomb, communism, or other real-world boogeymen.

“I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse ‘applicability’ with ‘allegory’; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”

Of course, there are thousands of ways in which The Lord of the Rings can be understood as relating to the society of Tolkien’s day, or to any society for that matter, but that’s precisely because he as author didn’t force the story to be about one thing and one thing only.

A simple example will, I think, illustrate the point. Imagine a story about a hungry mouse who, spotting a hunk of delicious-smelling cheese, rushes over to it only to find himself caught in a mousetrap. This may not be a very interesting story, but already it contains a general lesson that can be applied to an enormous variety of real-world situations. Not all that glitters is gold; beware of things that appear too good to be true, for they probably are; don’t let your base appetites overwhelm your caution or higher reasoning; look before you leap, etc. Already we can see how these lessons can be used to protect the safety of children, to give religious instruction, to warn against Nigerian princes, to give dating advice, to comment on the trustworthiness of politicians who promise the moon, and so on in a list we could continue indefinitely. The story is not about any of these individual things; it is about a mouse and some cheese, designed for entertainment rather than instruction. But it can be about any or all of these things depending on the reader’s imagination or individual outlook on life.

Now imagine that the author of this story, with all the subtlety of a political cartoon, slaps labels onto each of the story’s elements. The mouse, we’re told, represents the American worker; the cheese represents capitalism; and the trap represents the wealthy industrialists who exploit the labor of others for their own gain. Suddenly, the story is transformed from a timeless fable to a Marxist harangue which, unless you already agree with the author’s conclusions, will offer nothing of value to the reader.

This is the difference between social commentary and propaganda. To an extent, I agree with Weir’s critics that great stories are never “just” entertainment: they always have something more to teach us. Fight Club, The Matrix, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Aliens, Terminator, and any number of other universally-beloved movies contain plenty of social commentary, without ever being preachy. The lessons in these films are not taught through self-righteous lectures about the evil of Republicans or the original sin of being born a white man. Instead, we learn from stories that are honest about the human condition. A good book or film will necessarily contain a healthy dose of the author’s wisdom, accumulated through the sheer act of living, and that wisdom will be passed along to the audience as an often unconscious byproduct of entertaining them. But when authors treat their audiences like schoolchildren, held captive to passively receive the heavy-handed instruction of their superiors, they will succeed at neither educating nor entertaining, and will earn only resentment in return.

The post Good Entertainment Contains Wisdom, Not Propaganda appeared first on Free the People.

Subscribe to Kibbe on Liberty on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, BlazeTV, or anywhere you listen to podcasts.

The post How Do We Get Out of Iran? | Guest: Dave DeCamp | Ep 380 appeared first on Free the People.

Subscribe to Kibbe on Liberty on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, BlazeTV, or anywhere you listen to podcasts.

The post Afroman Is Vindicated on Free Speech | Guest: Afroman | Ep 379 appeared first on Free the People.

We are currently watching that again in real time with this war. The growing number of voices breaking with the MAGA-diehards and insisting that the war with Iran is a terrible idea are being smeared in real-time. Joe Kent’s resignation letter clearly stated that Iran “posed no imminent threat to our nation.” Calling on his time in the military, who had deployed 11 times and someone who lost his wife in a suicide bombing in Syria, Kent has the judgement of an individual who has operated at the highest levels of national security, and on the ground in tactical situations, and what that means for the servicemembers that must face the brunt of the war.

Already, at this writing, 13 service members are dead, with over 200 wounded, at least 10 ‘seriously.’ Besides the emotional and familial loss of their loved ones, the United States SGLI (Servicemember’s Group Life Insurance) covers $500,000 for each service member lost, a cost already over $6.5M for just those 13. Long-term disability costs are even higher. Just the 10 most severely wounded, assuming full disability over a lifetime, could cost more than $28 million. The remaining wounded could add roughly $250 million more, even before factoring in annual cost-of-living increases. Those servicemembers, much like the GWOT servicemembers I served alongside, deserve that VA disability for the number of deployments, as well as mental and physical problems they now face because of those wars; however, the cost is staggering. The cost for service members, as well as the cost of war, has exceeded $18B in just a few days, indicating the war is already off to an unsustainable start.

The general public, past and current Congressional members, and grassroots activists all echo the sentiment Joe Kent espouses. A New York Times article reported earlier this month that this war has the lowest public support of any American war, sitting at 41%, with a range of 27%-50% depending on the poll. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a former MAGA faithful, stated on X in February, “Thousands and thousands of Americans from my generation have been killed and injured in never-ending pointless foreign wars, and we said no more…” She has consistently gone against foreign intervention, much to the chagrin of Trump, arguing that the foreign wars undermine the “America First” promise and distract from more pressing domestic issues. Regardless of whether someone agrees with her or not, her position shows skepticism among some of the MAGA faithful about another endless conflict in the Middle East. Tucker Carlson, in an interview with The Economist, stated that, “This war is something that he (President Trump) promised he wouldn’t do. Not once, but countless times… and the idea behind it is not only contrary to America-first, it may be its inverse.”

When looking at how individuals are engaging these arguments against the war, many proponents of a continued escalation in Iran have chosen the tactic of smearing the individuals. Alan Dershowitz, in an interview with Newsmax, took the typical response of anyone who can’t debate the arguments, but tries to label Joe Kent and others as “Nazi Neo-Fascists.” The accusation does not try to argue for the war with Iran, but attempts to delegitimize anyone who is against the war. Looking again at a neocon smear job, Mark Levin has described anyone against the war as “neofascist podcaster isolationists,” again framing any opposition to his foreign policy as an ‘ultimate evil.’ Strong arguments do not have that kind of rhetoric; weak arguments do. This rhetoric is the same as when people call individuals ‘isolationists’ and that their foreign policy is akin to Chamberlain’s appeasement of Nazi Germany. They try to delegitimize individuals and arguments to ensure that debate on these serious matters does not occur. They do not want Americans to think there might be another way, but instead to believe their policies are infallible. This tactic is coming from the same foreign policy establishment that led to the disastrous wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and on and on.

Donald Trump initially attempted to justify the conflict as an effort to eliminate an imminent threat to the United States. After the strikes earlier in the year, he claimed that Iran’s defenses were gone. Stating that, “I think the war is very complete, pretty much.” If that was true, and the threat was neutralized a month ago and Iran’s nuclear capabilities were destroyed back in June of last year, why is the U.S. escalating a larger war with Iran? Why are new strikes being planned to destroy the capabilities that the U.S. has supposedly already destroyed? Why is Trump reportedly looking to seize Kharg Island with 3,000 Marines and the 82nd Airborne deploying to the region?

These contradictions would be challenging in any typical policy debate; however, the debate is being shaped to favor a longer and more substantial war. Lindsey Graham, who called for Marines to seize Kharg Island by force, compared taking it to the American capture of Iwo Jima. Besides the fact that World War II was a fight for national survival, Iwo Jima resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans and the spending of billions of dollars. To believe that this war in Iran would be any different from other wars in the Middle East ignores history and recent conflicts. It will cost thousands of American lives, trillions of dollars, and ultimately leave us worse off in the long run.

The smearing by neocons resembles leftist tactics that label people as ‘racist,’ ‘homophobic,’ ‘xenophobic,’ etc., aiming to shut down debate by attacking individuals instead of their arguments. Critics of the Iran war are dismissed as having extremist views, and any opposition to the neocon stance is deemed illegitimate. The goal is not to win policy debates but to make constructive discussion and policy decisions impossible. We saw this during the lead-up to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, when skeptics were called unpatriotic or accused of not supporting the troops. Those conflicts cost trillions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives, and destabilized the region. Now, once again, the U.S. is heading toward another open-ended conflict in the Middle East, facing a far larger and more capable adversary.

The problem with the smearing and name-calling is not simply that the war may go badly, but that honest debate cannot occur. If critics of the war in Iran are smeared as being ‘fascists’ instead of a proper debate occurring, the United States may walk itself into another war in the Middle East that will last another twenty years. The case for war in Iran is already extremely weak. The effort to silence individuals against it only makes that clearer. Unless Americans are willing to challenge not only the policies being implemented but also the tactics used to smear the individuals fighting those policies, we will watch the same mistakes repeat themselves. If dissent is silenced yet again, the outcome will not be just another war in the Middle East; it will be another failure we were not allowed to question.

The post Smearing the Skeptics, D.C. Neocons’ Oldest Trick to Sell War appeared first on Free the People.

The four-eyes, bullet-headed, akimbo-sitting, New-Age-spewing “intellectual” really has it in his mushbrain that he knows what makes my bell ring.

How? The guy gets gifted a Ph.D. from something called the RAND School of Public Policy and now he deeply understands what tickles my uvula? Fat chance!

Smarmy smarties like Brooks are always warning about the poisonous effects of politics as rec sports. Here comes his coaxing ‘script, like my damn fascist doctor always insisting I take my Seroquel. Brooks writes in The Free Press… *ding* ah! New York Times alert. Iran just struck the Ras Laffan gas plant in Qatar! Dammnnnnn. I don’t know what that even is, but it’s probably really bad. Just think: gas prices are about to skyrocket. The price of everything is going to jump. Whatever hope Republicans had for the midterms just got flushed like a wad of loo roll. A shame, really.

Guess it’ll be a hot summer. Oh well, where was I? Oh, right. Boffin boy Brooks! He etched out an entire column calling “political dilettantism” a “national obsession.” I don’t even know what that d-word means, but I do know that anyone who uses it probably dries their eyes in front of CNN while blowing their nose at us regular Joes. Sniffy Arthy says that treating politics like a “hobby” isn’t the same as being an informed citizen. He cites some bespectacled poindexter at one of those hoity Ivies. Well, I say, take your white papers, and hardbacks, and data sets and shove ‘em up your grundle. Brooks quotes a white-haired weirdo; I quote Catturd. Hey! Look at his latest tweet. “If libtards were so smart, they wouldn’t be so confused about what bathroom to use.” HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s great! *Slaps you on the back.* Isn’t that great!? Huh? LOOK AT IT. *Shoves phone an inch from your face.*

Oh right, Brooks the fun-crook. He claims the Twitter news stream is the equivalent of a salesman inducing “emotional fluctuations” to keep users in a kind of irrational spiral, too addicted to log off. Phooey! Do I seem addicted to yo…

Wait. Wall Street Journal push notification. Let’s see… my phone is making me “sad”? Huh? Do I seem sad? Well, do I?? This supposed sullen sack doesn’t have time to feel gloom. The only blue I have room for is the glow of my trusty news relayer.

Here! Look at this. Some guy named Sohrab Ahmari just suplexed Brooks on Twitter. “Aristotle: Man is by nature is (sic) a political animal. Arthur Brooks: You should take up my self-help therapeutic claptrap and leave the politics to my think tank.” BOOM! I bet Brooky felt that one. Maybe he even deleted his account. Aristotle was right. Us men are, by natural facility, political. And that means keeping our eyeballs spinning in political viscera.

Libs of TikTok, Breaking 911, Red Wave Press, Aaron Rupar, Benny Johnson, Medhi Hasan, End Wokeness, Johnny Maga, Hasan Piker, Breitbart, Daily Caller, CNN, Fox News, MS NOW—these are the Praetorian Guards of democratic deliberation! I can’t be an informed citizen without scrolling each account and more every waking hour.

Gainsaying quips that “own” the opposition are the beating heart of the body politic and uphold… WHOA. Here, look at this. Tucker Carlson livestream alert. “Mark Levin is a bloodthirsty ogre.” HAHAHAHAHA. Shots fired! See, this is the real democratic zeitgeist in action. WHOA again! Levin responded in kind on X. “Qatarson is a propagandistic quack.” Now we have a real debate over American militarism in the MidEast. OH LOOK. Megyn Kelly just leapt in the tussle. “Mark Levin can’t cut the mustard.” Yes! YES! YESSSSS!!!

See, bluenosed virtuepushers like Brooks shake their heads at this kind of discourse. But this is how the polity actually hashes out disagreement. Algorithm-driven hyperpolitics is the new Periclean agora. All these cortisol-jumping updates at my shaking fingertips. Exactly what the Founders envisioned in a citizen republic.

Ooooh! New Mamdani reel to rage at. Whoa! New Trump screed to cackle over. Oooooh wow. Another viral Senator Kennedy clip, with his daggum homespun one-liners! OMG! Some dumb lib just said another dumb lib thing on that stupid roundtable show. And Comfortably Smug just dunked on him!

What could be better than this? Dopamine, serotonin, and all types of surging chemicals are fighting a battle royal in my brain. It’s exhilarating! I go from chirpy to chippy to ecstatic to pissed to thrilled to seeing red, all in the course of a 30-second scroll.

Then I vote. Down-the-line R, naturally. What’s this? A bond question? Hmmm. “Should the county issue a bond for $500 in debt in order to finance a new public safety course in…” Eh. So boring. I’ll just circle “Yes” and see if anyone else is keying Brooks a new hide on Twitter.

The post Informed and Happily Scrolling appeared first on Free the People.

As states rush to regulate therapy chatbots, they risk freezing innovation in a system already failing millions.

America has a mental health care crisis—and poor state laws on technology risk making it harder to solve. More than 122 million Americans live in mental health deserts, where treatment is more than 30 miles away. One in four adults with a mental illness reports an unmet need for treatment. Millions are uninsured. For those with coverage, waitlists stretch for weeks or months. The system is overwhelmed, expensive, and rationed by geography and income. And yet, as the crisis in accessing mental health care deepens, it’s striking how quickly some states are moving to restrict artificial intelligence tools that could expand support, right as demand spills into the digital world anyway.

The justification for banning AI from taking some of the mental healthcare burden is safety. That concern is real. Some chatbots have given bad advice. Some failures have been serious. But risk alone is not a policy framework. If it were, telehealth would’ve probably never existed. Neither would most modern medicine. The real question is this: when a system is already failing millions, does shutting down experimentation make it safer, or simply more stagnant and more expensive?

I’ve spent enough time in therapy to know it isn’t a cure-all. Traditional talk therapy did not work for me. It was expensive and time-consuming. It often felt like I was paying to circle the same conversations. So I moved on to EMDR, which was focused on addressing specific incidents directly. Once the work was done, I did not need endless weekly sessions. It was a different tool, and it worked. That changed how I think about mental health care. No single modality works for everyone. Progress happens when new methods are allowed to compete and when patients can try tools that match the severity of what they’re dealing with.

AI may become another tool in that ecosystem—not as a replacement for clinicians, or a substitute for empathy, but as a supplement: a structured way to reflect, a low-cost support between sessions, or a first step for someone who would otherwise get nothing at all. That possibility is exactly what some states are now narrowing by treating almost any meaningful AI support as if it were a licensed clinical service.

In 2025 alone, state lawmakers introduced more than 1,000 measures related to artificial intelligence, with a growing share focused specifically on health care, children, and chatbot interactions. Illinois, for example, now allows AI in therapy only for administrative support while barring it from engaging in what the law defines as “therapeutic communication,” which includes offering emotional support, providing behavioral feedback, or reflecting on a user’s experiences.

In practice, that means an AI tool cannot even deliver a standardized, low-risk exercise, like guiding a structured CBT worksheet or running a supervised journaling flow, without being folded into a licensed clinician’s formal oversight. That may preserve the existing licensing model, but it does little to address the shortage inside it.

California has taken a similarly aggressive posture, requiring suicide-prevention protocols, repeated disclosures, and strict prohibitions on any AI system implying professional status. Additional proposals would tie mental health chatbots directly to licensed responsibility and open operators to private lawsuits and per-violation penalties. Framed as consumer protection, these measures also raise compliance costs, increase legal exposure, and make small-scale pilot programs risky. When experimentation carries the threat of liability before evidence can even develop, many builders simply step back. In a market already defined by limited providers and high prices, fewer entrants doesn’t equal greater safety.

Meanwhile, adults are not waiting for legislatures to decide whether AI belongs in mental health care. Surveys show roughly one-third of Americans say they would feel comfortable sharing concerns with an AI system instead of a human therapist. Among younger adults, that share rises above half. If states make supervised testing too restrictive, demand will not disappear. It will migrate toward general-purpose models, offshore platforms, or minimally-regulated apps operating beyond state oversight. None of this suggests a free-for-all. Mental health deserves guardrails like transparent disclosures, built-in crisis protocols, and firm data protections. But there is a difference between guardrails and barricades.

Utah’s regulatory sandbox reflects that distinction. Instead of preemptively banning entire categories of interaction, it allows companies to test tools under monitored conditions while regulators collect real-time data. The model assumes two things at once: that risk exists, and that evidence matters. It treats innovation as something to supervise and refine, not freeze.

We don’t get evidence by prohibiting pilots before they begin. Early clinical trials of AI-supported chatbots have demonstrated symptom improvement in depression and anxiety. Systematic reviews suggest these tools can support structured CBT exercises, screening, and early risk detection using language analysis. Even psychiatrists report patients are increasingly consulting AI tools before seeking care. Meanwhile, federal workforce projections estimate a shortfall of nearly 88,000 mental health counselors by 2037. For many adults, the realistic alternative to an imperfect digital tool is not premium in-person therapy, but weeks of waiting, out-of-pocket costs, or simply going without support altogether.

The policy question, then, is not whether AI is flawless. It is whether we allow new tools to improve under supervision, or prohibit them until they meet a theoretical standard no emerging technology has ever satisfied. Caution is warranted. But when caution becomes paralysis, the cost is borne by people already priced out, wait-listed, or geographically isolated.

Mental health care should not be exempt from responsible innovation simply because it is sensitive. It should be developed transparently, audited rigorously, and tested in the open before it gets locked into statute.

The post Why We Should Let AI Compete in Mental Health Care appeared first on Free the People.

Under the Trump administration, the United States is asserting itself as the champion of global free speech online. The hypocrisy is staggering.

In response to the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act (OSA) driving censorship across Britain, the United States is stepping in with a new initiative to promote free speech abroad. Last month the U.S. State Department unveiled Freedom.gov, a website, likely using a built-in virtual private network (VPN), that will allow foreign nationals to use the internet unfettered by local content restrictions or government surveillance. Led by Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers, Freedom.gov is intended to counter censorship abroad.

The problem is, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act gives the U.S. government the power to surveil noncitizens without a warrant. Why would young voices in the UK replace their own government’s suppression and censorship with the American’s? If the U.S. is serious about free speech around the world, they should let Section 702 expire in April.

This is not to say Freedom.gov can’t be a powerful tool for free speech, or that the administration’s concerns are not legitimate. The UK government’s use of the Public Order Act and the OSA’s “False Communications Offence” to arrest and charge comedians and parents is extraordinarily undemocratic. And while supporters will say that these are isolated incidents without broader repercussions, one 2025 study of 548 UK residents showed worry about punishment was a significant driver for individuals to self-censor. This effect was particularly pronounced among conservatives and the non-political.

The administration’s plans to push back on this censorship should be celebrated. But it’s unclear how exactly Freedom.gov would achieve this goal. One method that has been suggested is the use of a built-in VPN to reroute internet traffic to the U.S. This would allow users to bypass content restrictions mandated by the UK and encrypt their web traffic. By returning anonymity to users and allowing them to freely express themselves online without fear of arrest or censorship, Freedom.gov could be a boon in the fight for freedom of expression around the world.

The problem is that Section 702 sends the message to the rest of the world that they aren’t allowed to surveil and silence their citizens, but we are.

Allowing this measure to expire would act as such a potent signal. It is one of the executive branch’s most powerful legal tools for law enforcement operations, but it is also one of its most abused. Whether it’s the Biden administration using it to surveil a U.S. Senator, or the NSA deploying it to conduct mass surveillance of all communications flowing in and out of the U.S., Section 702 represents the same type of illiberal and antidemocratic surveillance that is bringing the OSA under fire.

The US should lead the world in allowing and encouraging free expression. Freedom.gov could be an extraordinary project demonstrating a commitment to these goals. The best way to earn the trust of users is for Congress to end the provision that has fed the American mass surveillance regime for decades. When Freedom.gov launches, it should be a monument to the American principles of free speech, not hypocrisy.

The post If America Cares About Free Speech Abroad, Let Section 702 Expire appeared first on Free the People.

In a Truth Social post over the weekend, Trump suggested leveling “treason” charges against media outlets that he says are reporting false information about the Iran war even as the human and economic costs of his illegal military assault continue to mount (via Alternet.com):

Trump’s latest threat against the free press came after his Federal Communications Commission chair, Brendan Carr, threatened Saturday to pull the broadcasting licenses of media outlets he accused of “running hoaxes and news distortions.” Carr did not provide specific examples.

Following Carr’s threat, Trump posted a self-aggrandizing infographic bragging about how he has been “reshaping the media” into his own version of a state-run media that would make even Joseph Goebbels jealous:

Not to be outdone, the cosplay soldier-wannabe masquerading as the non-existent Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, also declared his displeasure with the media’s reporting on the Iran war when he expressed his desire to see CNN turned into a branch of Trump’s state-run media—to be run by David Ellison, the son of AI Tech Bro Larry Ellison (via CommonDreams.org):

Maybe it’s just me, but I’m thinking that regulatory approval by the Trump administration isn’t going to be all that hard to get, regardless of how “closely” some state AGs “scrutinize the agreement.” Case in point: Carr has already expressed his approval of the CNN takeover, telling CNBC last month that he thought it was a “good deal, and I think it should get through pretty quickly.” Shocking, right?

Donald Trump has never been a fan of the First Amendment rights to Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech. Throughout his 2016 campaign and continuing throughout his first term, Trump routinely played the worn-out “fake news” card against any media outlet that reported stories that failed to massage his massive ego. Declaring them to be “the enemy of the people”—Joseph Goebbels would be so proud—Trump threatened to silence his critics in the press through the use of libel lawsuits and by revoking the broadcast licenses of major networks.

Trump began setting things in motion for the creation of a state-run media in the first year of his first term in office when he gave Sinclair a sweetheart deal that would have allowed the media giant to have control over a large majority of US households. In October 2017, his FCC Chairman, Ajit Pai—a holdover from the Obama administration—reinstated an old rule meant to pave the way for a $3.9 billion TV merger between Sinclair and Tribune—allowing the company to own enough stations to reach over 70% of US households.

Pai also issued a second decision that eliminated the requirement for TV stations to maintain local studios in the markets where they are licensed, thus opening the door for “local news” to be controlled in places like Washington, DC.

Combined, these decisions would have given Sinclair control of TV news in approximately 72 percent of US households. Besides the fact that this consolidation ran in direct opposition to the FCC’s mission of promoting competition, diversity, and locality of the public airwaves, there was a conflict of interest involved because Sinclair had close ties to Trump, Steve Bannon, and Breitbart News at the time.

So funny to watch Fake News Networks, among the most dishonest groups of people I have ever dealt with, criticize Sinclair Broadcasting for being biased. Sinclair is far superior to CNN and even more Fake NBC, which is a total joke.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 2, 2018

Do you remember when Jimmy Kimmel was suspended? After allegedly saying some unflattering things about Charlie Kirk following his assassination, Kimmel was given his walking papers by ABC’s parent company, the Disney Entertainment division of the Walt Disney Company. The decision came just hours after FCC Chairman Brendan Carr publicly criticized Kimmel’s remarks and suggested that regulatory consequences would follow.

It was during the Kimmel suspension that Trump re-opened his state-run media playbook and suggested that networks who were “biased” against him should have their broadcast licenses revoked. Speaking to reporters, Trump said, “They’re 97% against, they give me only bad press. They’re getting a license. I would think maybe their license should be taken away.”

Kimmel’s suspension also coincided with another media consolidation—Nexstar Media Group’s $6.2 billion merger with Tegna which is still awaiting FCC approval. Nexstar’s attempt to join Trump’s state-run media has been less direct and has taken a little longer to create.

We begin with (where else?) FOX News, the network home of his first-term advisor and shadow chief of staff, Sean Hannity. Like Sinclair, Trump wanted to reward the network that once branded itself “fair and balanced” for the part they played in his election in 2016. This is when, early in the second year of his first term, that Trump selected the former co-president of FOX News Bill Shine—after a major push from Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly—to the White House to serve in a senior communications role.

The selection was controversial at the time because, in addition to his tainted history of turning FOX into Trump TV, Shine’s past was clouded by his forced resignation from FOX News after his poor handling of sexual harassment scandals involving former Chief Executive Roger Ailes and the aforementioned Bill O’Reilly. After only a year on the job, Shine resigned as Trump’s communications guy to be the senior advisor to his 2020 re-election campaign.

After Trump’s loss, Shine took a position as an advisor with NewsNation, a news network owned by… you guessed it… Nexstar. One of the personalities featured on the upstart news network is none other than Bill O’Reilly who, in likely obedience to Nexstar execs, declared that the decision to cancel Jimmy Kimmel was about “responsibility,” not “censorship.”

Staying in Trump’s good graces has become standard operating procedure for media outlets who want to be a part of his state-run media, so caving to the FCC chair when he complains about a late-night TV host shouldn’t be all that surprising, particularly when we remember that Jimmy Kimmel wasn’t the first to go down (he was later reinstated).

Stephen Colbert was cancelled by CBS. A week following the cancellation, the FCC approved Skydance’s acquisition of Paramount CBS. And I’m sure this is purely coincidental, but Sinclair and Nexstar both own local CBS affiliates, with Nexstar being the largest independent operator of CBS affiliates. What are the odds?

Trump is openly advocating that media outlets be charged with “treason” for unfavorable coverage of his unconstitutional war in Iran, and his FCC chair is willing to hold broadcast licenses hostage if these outlets continue displeasing the dictator wannabe.

Better gird your loins, my fellow lovers of liberty. The state-run media Trump is creating is real, and there will be much more of his in the days ahead.

The post Trump Threatens Media With ‘Treason’ for Unfavorable Iran War Coverage appeared first on Free the People.

Sienna first connected with Hannah during a pivotal moment in her life, and what began as admiration from afar has grown into a deep respect for Hannah’s evolving perspective. Known for her sharp analysis and willingness to challenge conventional narratives, Hannah brings clarity to complex cultural issues.

Together, they explore women’s rights, the virtue of work, dating, step-parenthood, and society’s expectations around fertility and traditional motherhood. They also discuss calls for justice from women and girls affected by the crimes detailed in the Epstein files, reflecting on accountability and truth.

Drawing from The Handmaid’s Tale, they examine how themes of control, identity, and autonomy intersect with creativity, purpose, and the freedom to choose one’s own path.

Real Unity is also available as a podcast on your app of choice. Follow Sienna Mae Heath on Substack, Medium, and Instagram.

The post Are The Handmaid’s Tale Costumes Justified? | Hannah Cox | Ep 12 appeared first on Free the People.