Over the past month, Judge Amy Coney Barrett has persisted through the extensive process that is required to become a Supreme Court Justice. First, a nomination from President Trump, much to the delight of Conservatives, and to the displeasure of Liberals. Judge Barrett, entering the Senate Judiciary as an austere scholar and judge, had the qualifications and capabilities anyone could wish for in a Supreme Court Justice. A mother to seven and legal expert, she knew how to handle the childlike approach of the Democrat Senators to questioning her throughout her week of confirmation hearings in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Republicans treated her with the utmost respect, the Democrats lacking all sense of maturity when speaking to her. After masterfully navigating her way through the hearings, no notes necessary, Judge Barrett’s nomination was sent by the Judiciary Committee to the Senate for a full vote. After the Democrat Senators complained about this procedure for a while, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer claiming the Republicans were stealing Supreme Court seats and breaking over 200 years of precedent (both claims of which are untrue) and even going so far as to say that “Generations yet unborn will suffer the consequences of this nomination” (an ironic statement that I’ll explain in a moment), the vote was undertaken, returning 52-48 in favour of confirming Judge Barrett. Thus, she was sworn in by Justice Clarence Thomas, becoming Justice Amy Coney Barrett (and on Hillary’s birthday too, very well played by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell).

Throughout the process, from the time of ACB’s nomination to her confirmation and swearing in, and even now, liberals have done nothing but complain, attempting to pull every move they could to stop this from happening. Why? Because there is one major ruling on the table that, with the addition of Justice Barrett, could now be overturned: Roe v Wade. This is a decision that was made by the Supreme Court in 1973 to make abortion legal. It is something that has aided in the killing of hundreds of millions of unborn babies, including far too many cases of babies in the later stages of development (and yes, there have been cases of babies born alive and left to die). Many liberals are pro-abortion, or, as they would call it, “pro-choice”. That is why they want to protect the Roe v. Wade decision by all means necessary. The problem with this landmark decision, however, is that it is all predicated on a lie. Allow me to explain.

Roe v. Wade was ruled on by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in 1973. It came into being a few years before that, when a young woman by the name of Norma McCorvey, who became known in the case as Jane Roe, became pregnant with her third child. She was struggling financially, and had given up her two previous children, ceding custody of the first to her mother, and adopting out the second. In this case, she wished to have an abortion, however, she could not legally seek one in her State of Texas. Abortion was only legal in a few States at the time, including New York and California. Norma’s circumstances left her unable to travel to any of these States. She was then approached by two lawyers who were recently out of law school, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee. Weddington and Coffee wanted to change America’s abortion laws, and so used Norma as a means of getting what they wanted. When Norma was five months pregnant, the two lawyers took her out to lunch and drank beers so that they could get Norma kind of drunk and convince her to agree to filing suit in a challenge to Texas’ abortion laws. They clearly took advantage of her for their own personal ambition, but nevertheless the case went to court in Texas, where Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade represented the State as the defendant, hence Roe v. Wade. All Norma did was sign a one page affidavit, and this was her only involvement in the case. She never went to a single trial hearing. Eventually, the panel of three judges ruled in favour of the two lawyers, yet the State appealed, and thus the case went to the Supreme Court.

Interestingly enough, if Weddington had wanted to help Norma obtain an abortion, she could have, as she was involved in a Texas based abortion referral network. However, she never once mentioned this to Norma, ironic considering this woman who basically championed abortion withheld one from her own client. The major kicker however was that Norma gave birth to her third child during the time of the trial proceedings, putting the baby up for adoption. That means that Norma, or as she was known in the legal proceedings Jane Roe, never had an abortion.

Now around the same time another similar case occurred in the State of Georgia. This case became known as Doe v. Bolton. Sandra Cano, a struggling mother of three, became known in the case as Mary Doe. She had become pregnant with her 4^th child, and met with a lawyer by the name of Margie Pitts Hames, in order to seek legal aid in obtaining custody of her children who were in foster care, and also to get a divorce. On behalf of Sandra, Hames filed suit to obtain an abortion, something that Sandra had never requested nor wanted. The signed documents produced whereby she had allegedly agreed to one were manipulated in one of two ways. Either Hames had forged Sandra’s signature, or she had slipped the document in question into the papers that Sandra was under the impression regarded the sole custody of her children and divorce, which she had signed. Hames then took the case to the District Court in Georgia, whereby Attorney General Arthur Bolton represented the State. The challenge set down was to the law pertaining to abortions permitted only in the cases of rape, severe fetal deformity, or threat to the mother. Similarly to Roe v. Wade, the panel of three judges found that portions of Georgia’s abortion law were unconstitutional, but the State appealed, and so Doe v. Bolton also found its way to the Supreme Court.

Like Norma, Sandra never appeared in court after the initial hearing. Rather, she fled to Oklahoma in order to save the child with which she was pregnant. That means neither of the two women who these cases were based upon ever had an abortion. It was all predicated on a lie.

In the SCOTUS, Roe v. Wade was ruled on with a 7-2 majority to uphold the decision made by the Texas court. Doe V. Bolton was also upheld. In the ruling, Harry Blackmun invented a new legal framework, based upon a three-trimester measure of pregnancy, which would essentially allow abortion through all nine months of pregnancy. This was not at all based on the medical understanding of fetal development nor pregnancy. The framework specified that in the 1^st trimester, abortions were to be unrestricted. In the 2^nd trimester, some restrictions were to be made, but only for “health” reasons. In the 3^rd trimester, abortion was to be restricted in its entirety as long as the laws contained certain exceptions for cases where abortion was said to be necessary to save the life or health of the mother.

To get an understanding of what “health” was defined as, we must look to the adjunct case, Doe v. Bolton. The rulings in this case defined “health” in a very broad sense, in which was included the “physical, emotional, psychological and familial” health, as well as the age of the woman in question. Due to the broad scope of the definition of “health”, abortion was practically justified for almost any reason in the third trimester. This set a terrible precedent which has basically allowed abortions of any and all kinds to be carried out in the years since, killing tens of millions of babies.

Now the legal foundation for Roe v. Wade is, in reality, totally nonsensical. In Blackmun’s argument, he concluded that a woman’s choice to have an abortion was covered under the “right to privacy”. Essentially, he claimed that the killing of a child still in the womb was a private matter, and is therefore justified. However, this “right to privacy” as Blackmun defined it lacks a strong legal foundation.

To understand this, we must venture back to 1965, to the case of Griswold v Connecticut. This case centred around contraception. In the rulings of this case, SCOTUS made the decision that certain State restrictions on contraception were considered unconstitutional. The reasoning behind this was that, in the eyes of the Supreme Court, there was a “right to privacy for married couples that protects their ability to obtain contraception.” This in itself was vague, but became the basis for the eventual Roe v. Wade decision. In Griswold v Connecticut, Justice William Douglas wrote that the decision that was made to give couples this right was a resultant of “penumbras formed by emanations” from various parts of the Constitution. Now you may wonder, what in the world is a penumbra? A penumbra is defined as “the partially shaded outer region of the shadow cast by an opaque object” or “the shadow cast by the earth or moon over an area experiencing a partial eclipse” or “the less dark outer part of a sunspot, surrounding the core”, or “ a peripheral or indeterminate area or group”. For clarification, an “emanation” is defined as “something which originates or issues from a source.”

Essentially, “penumbras formed by emanations” or, an indeterminate area formed by something which originated from a source, in this case from the Constitution, gave couples the right of privacy to obtain contraception. This formed the basis for a later case, Eisenstaedt v. Baird, which determined that this right of privacy extended to individuals who were unmarried. That brings us back to Roe v. Wade, as this right to privacy being ruled to extend to individuals set the basis for the Roe v. Wade decision, in which Blackmun essentially ruled that the right of privacy for individuals to obtain contraception was inclusive of the right to an abortion. In making this determination, SCOTUS practically twisted the words of the Constitution to align with an ideology, one which allowed for the taking of innocent human lives. In essence, this decision means that abortion is viewed as a method of contraception. Yet abortion should never be seen as a form of birth control. That is what encourages people to be reckless and get pregnant time and time again, with the thinking that they can just get an abortion if they fall pregnant. It is disrespectful to human life.

But life is where the case for abortion can fall apart. See, in his ruling, Justice Blackmun stated that if prenatal “personhood is established” the case for abortion “collapses for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the 14^th Amendment”. The 14^th Amendment grants American citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” and forbids the States from denying any person “life, liberty or property, without the due process of law” or to “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. This links in with Blackmun’s ruling in that if personhood is established, the unborn baby thereby possesses the right to life, and there no longer exists any case for abortion.

That means that the entire case for abortion is dependent on dehumanizing and depersonalizing one whole group of human beings: unborn babies. Now think about other times when certain groups were treated in this way. The most infamous one would be the treatment of the Jews in Nazi Germany, where they were dehumanized and tattooed with numbers. Dehumanizing and/or depersonalizing human beings is a tactic used to make them appear subhuman in an attempt to justify terrible actions taken against them. In the case of abortion, it is to take their lives before they even get a chance to live them. Abortion has killed somewhere in the vicinity of 60 million babies since it was legalized. It is a blight on humanity that this has been allowed to occur.

That is why Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment to the Supreme Court is such a monumental moment for America. For a long time, it has been virtually impossible to overturn Roe v. Wade, given the balance of power in the Supreme Court was not held by Conservatives when it came to this matter. The late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, God rest her soul, who Justice Barrett will replace, was an advocate for women’s rights, and thus would not be one to overturn the decision on abortion laws. Chief Justice Roberts, who many would think is supposed to be more Conservative, sides with the liberal Justices on many matters. But now, with the appointments of Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, all by President Trump, there is the very real prospect that Roe v. Wade, a law predicated on a number of lies, will be overturned, bringing about an end to legalized abortion.

For too long, baby-killing has been legal in the United States of America. Organisations like Planned Parenthood, who (shocker) opposed ACB’s nomination to the Supreme Court, have profited off the killing of generations of unborn babies. But in ACB we have hope that a loud voice, a voice of change, will finally be given to the voiceless, and millions of lives saved. If you listened closely as Amy Coney Barrett was appointed to the Supreme Court, you could hear the cheers of millions of unborn babies who may now get to live.

Chuck Schumer said in his speech to the Senate just prior to the confirmation vote that “Generations yet unborn will suffer the consequences of this nomination”. There was a profound irony in Senator Schumer’s statement. No, generations yet unborn will not suffer. Rather, they will no longer suffer a cruel end, but will be allowed to be born and live their lives. The Left’s contempt for human life is reprehensible. But Conservatives respect human life. And now we have a chance to make things right.

We must be thankful for President Trump’s pro-life stance. We must be thankful for Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And we must now live in the hope that the disrespectful laws predicated on lies and ambition will be overturned, and justice and respect for human life restored to the United States of America.

God Bless President Trump. God Bless Amy Coney Barrett. And God Bless all the unborn babies, and those who never had the chance to live.

Joe Biden had just one job. After being off the campaign trail all week thus far, all he had to do was pull off at least a semi-decent performance at the final Presidential debate. He’d had practically four whole days to practice, to rehearse his pieces to camera. But even Biden could not maintain the “Orange Man Bad” strategy without several gaffes, and a policy revelation that had many doing a double take. It would have left even the Democrats reeling, likely thinking he would have just been better off kept in the basement. Trump won the debate convincingly, taking a measured approach and calling Joe out on his flip flopping on a range of policies, summing up Biden with one notable line: “You’re all talk and no action.”

Biden’s gaffes were something else at this debate. We have become used to this sort of thing from the former Vice President, but this time it got worse, as Biden claimed, “Abraham Lincoln over there is the most racist President.” Here’s the thing: Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. If anything, Trump should take it as a compliment, given he has also done a lot for the black community himself, including bringing down the black unemployment rate. Now you would think implying Lincoln was a racist is about as absurd as it can get. But no, it only gets worse. In addition to this remark, Biden also labelled the leaders of North Korea and Russia as “thugs”, something you probably should not do if you could be the next President of the United States of America. By the tone Biden was taking, it almost sounded as if he would go to war with North Korea if he became President, which is not a path anyone would want to go down. But then, Biden likened Kim Jong-Un to Hitler. Trump spoke of the work he had done in relation to North Korea, including the meetings he had undertaken with their leader, something no other President has managed during their time in office. Biden’s rebuttal? “We had a good relationship with Hitler before he invaded.” When it comes to debates, a general rule of thumb is that whoever invokes the Nazis first is generally losing the debate. In this case, it was Joe Biden.

Throughout the debate, Trump was masterful. Taking a more measured approach this time around, he answered the questions posed to him with precision, focusing for the most part on policy, and maintaining the line that Biden is a politician, whereas he is not. This is in part why Trump has been arguably one of the best Presidents the United States has seen. He is not just your typical Washington politician. He is a businessman, he understands the economy, he understands trade, and he understands how to make deals. There is a reason why Trump was the one who got Middle Eastern countries talking and agreeing to peace deals. There is a reason the US economy was in one of the strongest positions it has ever been in pre-COVID. We saw that same President at the debate, skillfully setting traps for his opponent, who stumbled into them so very easily.

The debate really heated up when it reached the topic of National Security. Biden attempted to link Trump to the Russians, going so far as to make the crucial error of mentioning former Mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani. This opened the door for Trump to bring up Biden’s dealings with Russia through his son, Hunter Biden, whereby he brought up the emails that have become a major story over the last week. When China was brought up, similar events occurred, in which Trump took the opportunity to discuss the Biden family’s dealings with them and the Ukraine, again discussing the emails, and mentioning the “Laptop from hell”, a reference to Hunter Biden’s laptop that is the source of all the information coming to light. He even referred to Joe as “The Big Guy”, a reference to emails on the laptop that detail Hunter’s business dealings. The laptop is currently in possession of the FBI, and, despite claims from 50 former intelligence officials/analysts that it is a Russian disinformation campaign, a claim that the media and even Biden himself have made, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI have both dispelled this, confirming that it is not. More will likely come of this in the coming days and weeks.

Throughout the debate, Biden made many claims that were untrue. He claimed he had not called Trump a xenophobe for closing the borders to China, a claim debunked quickly by those on Twitter who located the tweet from March 18 where Biden said “Stop the xenophobic fear-mongering. Be honest. Take responsibility. Do your job.” This was in response to Trump’s March 18 tweet where he brought up his early decision to close the borders to China. Biden also claimed that Obamacare did not result in anyone losing their health insurance plan. That was also false. In fact, this was not the first time this lie was told. There is a reason it was PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year in 2013. Then came the discussion on climate change and energy, which inevitably lead to the subject of fracking. This is an issue that the Biden/Harris campaign have flip flopped on. Throughout the Democrat primaries, Biden and Kamala Harris both said they would end fracking. After the primaries, when they became the Democrat nominees, they started saying they would not ban fracking. When the topic was brought up at this debate, Joe Biden again claimed that he was not going to end it, but Trump reminded him of his previous comments on the matter, and soon after tweeted a clip of these comments. But fracking ended up being the least of Joe’s worries after what he said next.

The energy segment of the debate dropped the biggest bombshell of all. Just before it wrapped up, Trump prodded Biden on oil and what he would do about it. It was a subtle trap that Biden fell right into, making the career-ending decision to tell the people of America that he would transition out of oil. I think everyone would have done a double take here, some probably spitting out their tea/coffee/water/whatever you were drinking at the time. That’s right, Biden said he would end the US Oil Industry. Refined and Crude Petroleum (oil) is America’s top commodity, exporting approximately $71.32 billion annually. They are the leading exporters of refined and crude petroleum, with 15% of the market share. Ending the US Oil Industry is like blowing up the economy. Some people said after the debate concluded that Trump did not deliver a knock-out blow. He didn’t have to. Biden did it to himself. All Trump had to do was set it up.

Without trying to sound too harsh here, what Joe Biden did was about the dumbest thing anyone running for President of the United States of America could do. Not only is oil the US’s biggest commodity, it is important to the people of Texas (TX) and Pennsylvania (PA), two of four key States in this election (the others being Florida (FL) and North Carolina (NC). Now Texas is fairly Conservative, and was already more than likely to stay Red. If anything, this just solidifies it. But Pennsylvania is far more unpredictable. It is a wild card of sorts, in that the government there at all levels is split evenly in a general sense. The Governor is a Democrat, but both Houses of State legislature are controlled by Republicans. Similarly, at a Federal level, PA has both a Democrat and Republican Senator. Before the debate, it could have easily been anyone’s to win. However, Biden’s remarks on ending the Oil Industry has almost certainly lost him PA, and, due to the cruciality of this State to winning the Presidency, the election. Effectively, Biden just committed political suicide. (Pro tip: If you are running for President and you actually want to have even a shot at winning, do not say you’re going to end the industry that produces your country’s top commodity.)

Energy industry workers would have been horrified to hear what Biden so passively said. Even the debate moderator, Kristen Welker, asked him “Why would you do that?” This just goes to show how unbelievable this remark was. Those energy workers who have already voted for Biden, in addition to some others, would likely be regretting voting early, and they have every reason to. This would, after all, take away their jobs and damage the US economy all in one hit. In fact, just today Steven Crowder posted an image on Twitter showing Google search statistics for the search term “can I change my vote”, which had increased significantly just after the debate. They will no doubt be holding out hope that those who have not yet voted will save them from Biden and his destructive policy.

Since the debate, Biden’s Deputy Campaign Manager Kate Bedingfield has sought to “clarify” Biden’s remarks on the oil industry, saying that the former VP was referring to ending oil subsidies. This is pure spin for the purpose of damage control. It was predictable, given this is a PR nightmare for the Biden campaign team. Yet no amount of spin can undo the words spoken by Joe Biden himself. They are not fooling anyone. After all, in the age of the internet, video clips are forever.

The problem with Joe Biden is that, much of the time, he makes some very odd and absurd remarks. He appears unfit to lead the United States of America, both in a mental capacity, and in the capacity that he is likely compromised by China. Investigations will no doubt continue into the emails and other evidence on Hunter Biden’s laptop, and whistleblower Tony Bobulinski, who worked on these foreign deals with the Bidens, will be talking with the FBI. By the looks of things, Biden’s chances at becoming the 46^th President of the United States are low. Even early voting is unlikely to save him, considering it seems somewhat underwhelming for the Democrats. It is beginning to appear as if Trump may actually achieve an historic landslide win, despite having to fight against Big Tech, the Mainstream Media, celebrities, the cancel culture liberals, and of course the Democrats, some of which are likely also corrupt and have been doing everything in their power to attempt to bring down the Trump Presidency. It would truly be the greatest political story ever told.

And as for Joe Biden, he would be much better off calling a lid not only on his campaign, but on his entire political career.

Today, Facebook and Twitter crossed a line. It has long been known that they have been engaging in censorship of views they do not like, typically those of Conservatives. But today, they went one step further. Today, they engaged in election interference, confirming something that Conservatives have known for many years: these are not platforms, they are publishers.

An article was published in the New York Post earlier today, detailing Hunter Biden’s email correspondence. Hunter, the son of Democrat nominee for President, former Vice President Joe Biden, with the Ukraine. Now it is widely known that Hunter has had business dealings with the Ukraine, given it has been the subject of much media coverage and scrutiny over the time in which Joe Biden has been running for President. However, the former VP has consistently claimed he had no knowledge of his son’s business dealings. The emails detailed in this report from the NY Post are thereby damning given they show that Biden was indeed involved in Hunter’s dealings with the Ukraine. This means that for months on end, Biden has been lying about his involvement. There is a very real possibility, hell, it is practically a reality, that the former VP is corrupt.

But there is a far greater concern than this that has emerged from the flames of the fire. When this report was published, it was, as is the norm nowadays, shared around on social media, particularly Twitter and Facebook. However, these social media “platforms” jumped on the article, doing all they could to practically wipe it from history. Facebook started taking down the posts, claiming it was a publishing decision (something that is limited to publishers, not platforms), and Twitter went on a suspension spree, locking the accounts of people who shared the article and removing the tweets. They locked out Hollywood actor James Woods, known for being a staunch Conservative, and political commentator Jack Posobiec. But then they went overboard when they locked out President Trump’s Press Secretary, Kayleigh McEnany. This is where it crossed over from mass censorship to election interference.

See these Silicon Valley companies, also known as Big Tech, claim to be “platforms”. Platforms allow for the free sharing of information with very limited restrictions. In other words, people should not be punished for simply sharing their political views, or a news article like that published by the NY Post. A publisher, on the other hand, has the ability to choose what is published on their site, and thus can remove posts if they so wish. As previously mentioned, Facebook and Twitter both claim to be platforms. Now it is well known that the companies’ CEOs Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, alongside most of those who work for these social media companies, are liberals. They do not like Conservative views, being quick to censor them regularly. Many Conservatives have had their accounts suspended or indeed removed completely from these “platforms” simply for sharing opposing views to their creators. This is unacceptable under the provisions that constitute a platform. To understand this however, we must look to Section 230 of the US Communications Act.

In essence, Section 230 provides both providers and users of an “interactive computer service” who publish information from third parties with immunity from liability. Furthermore, it provides what is termed as “Good Samaritan” protection from civil liability for the operators of such interactive computer services in moderating and/or removing any third-party material that they deem to be either obscene or offensive, as long as it is done in good faith. This is the privilege extended to platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, so long as they are classified as such.

However, in the actions these two social media giants have taken today, they have overstepped their boundaries, removing material that was neither obscene nor offensive. Indeed, the only issue with the article from the NY Times was that it did significant damage to the Biden campaign, evident from the actions of the campaign this morning in calling a lid at 10:30am. More notably, neither Joe Biden nor his campaign team have refuted the substance of the article, bringing into question Biden’s innocence in all this. It speaks volumes that Biden would call a lid after this was published, given the very action itself screams guilt.

Now it was only a few days ago that Twitter announced a new Civic Integrity Policy that they would be implementing in order to prevent any election interference. The irony in this is that they have now done just that themselves. In engaging in mass censorship that was clearly not in good faith this morning, and striking down Kayleigh McEnany’s account, they made a grave error. They stepped out of the shadows and revealed themselves to be a publisher. It is something that has been known by many for years, but they have now practically admitted it amidst their reckless actions. Facebook have done the same, making it clear as day when they said they chose to take down the article based on a publishing decision, a privilege that is not extended to platforms, rather being limited solely to publishers. Both companies have essentially ceded any rights they have as a platform.

This time, Big Tech have really bitten off more than they can chew. President Trump is not at all happy with what they have done, especially taking into consideration that they went after his Press Secretary. He is not the only one, with a host of other Republican members of Congress, including Texan Senator Ted Cruz, irate with the farce that these social media giants have become. Cruz in particular has been a vocal proponent of free speech on these platforms and others, including YouTube, having stood up for Conservative commentator and comedian Steven Crowder when he was demonetized by the video sharing “platform” last year after countless attacks. Crowder still faces such issues even now after he was re-monetized, unsurprising given his Conservative views and takedowns of Left-Wing ideologues and their talking points. Cruz, amongst others, has raised these issues in the Senate, however little has come of it.

But now, that is likely all about to change. President Trump has reportedly called a meeting with Republicans for this weekend to discuss the ramifications of the egregious actions partaken in by both Facebook and Twitter, with many calling for Section 230 to be repealed. It would appear some in the Trump administration have caught onto this, with McEnany today setting a broken clock she owns to 2:30 before appearing on Sean Hannity’s program on Fox News. This clock has been set to specific times over the last few days (including 3:11, to represent November 3, which is Election Day, and 3:16, representative of the famous Bible verse John 3:16) as she appears from home while isolating after testing positive to COVID-19. It is essential that Section 230 is repealed, or at the very least that Facebook and Twitter are officially classified as publishers so that they cannot claim the special privileges of the Section.

In addition to this, Zuckerberg and Dorsey should be hauled to front Congress and explain themselves. Although Dorsey and Twitter claim there was a communication error and that the Hunter Biden article was removed because it “contained personal information”, they must show how this was any different to the stories published and shared on the President’s taxes, and the recordings of private conversations of the First Lady. If they are going to take down tweets for these reasons, they need to be consistent across the board, no matter which political side is affected.

Essentially, if you are going to claim to be a platform, you take zero responsibility for the content posted on your platform and have nothing to do with it. Otherwise, if you want the ability to edit and take responsibility for what is posted, you declare yourself as a publisher. It is quite simple.

Facebook and Twitter must also explain why they are engaging in election interference. This is something the Democrats accused Russia of doing back in 2016, which turned out to be a hoax, but this time it is a very real issue. These Big Tech companies pose a threat to democracy, attempting to cover up for Joe Biden in the hope that he will win the election. It is something that must be dealt with to ensure the integrity of the 2020 Election, which takes place in just under three weeks.

Big Tech must not be allowed to control journalism. What occurred this morning was Orwellian, like something out of a political dystopia where the truth is censored so that falsehoods may be preserved in an effort to ensure political victory for one side. These companies must be held to account and regulated so as to prevent any further attempts to interfere with a democratic election. But while we await this, we must be wary that all Conservatives are under threat from these tech giants now. If they can take down the Press Secretary, they can take down anyone.

Big Tech have declared digital warfare. It is crucial we do not let them win.

The dominoes are falling in Victoria. The truth is beginning to escape the confines of the Hotel Quarantine Inquiry. After Peta Credlin’s appearance at last Friday’s press conference, Premier Daniel Andrews and a number of other senior staff were asked to provide their phone records by the Board of Inquiry. An astonishing development, given it came within two days of Credlin’s new line of questioning. These phone records have ultimately proven that Chris Eccles, Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, made a call to former Police Commissioner Graham Ashton at 1:17pm on March 27, the day the hotel quarantine was announced, a time which fell squarely in the key 6 minute period that was unaccounted for.

After this revelation, this morning Eccles, the head of the public service in Victoria, resigned from his position effective immediately. As Premier, Daniel Andrews is responsible for Chris Eccles, yet seems unwilling to take any responsibility for the Victorian head of public service, a man who was on a salary of $600k+ a year. For perspective, that is more than the Premier himself makes, even with his recent pay rise. Upon the announcement of this major resignation, the implosion of the Victorian Labor Party has commenced. Victorian Labor MPs have reportedly begun to do the numbers, calling for Daniel Andrews’ resignation. At his daily presser, it only got worse for him when Peta Credlin made a triumphant return.

At the presser Credlin asked Andrews about Eccles and his fated phone call. She discussed how Eccles had been in the room with Daniel Andrews at the National Cabinet meeting on March 27, and left the room at 12pm, prior to the meeting’s end, after having a conversation with the Premier. He then spoke to Andrews’ Chief of Staff, who still has not appeared at the Inquiry once, who in turn spoke to Simon Phemister, the Secretary of the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions. Eccles also made a call at 1:17pm to former Chief Police Commissioner Graham Ashton, a call in which he clearly told Ashton something significant, given Eccles was the only person Ashton had any contact within the fated 6 minute period, and Ashton proceeded to contact AFP head Reece Kershaw shortly after. At 12:36 pm, one of the private security companies that ended up obtaining a $30 million contract, Unified Security, was given a heads up about the Federal Government’s COVID-19 control course would have to be completed in order to gain the contract. They told their private security that they would have to complete the course by 2:30pm. There is no reasonable excuse to justify the notion that the security company would have been told about this opportunity before the National Cabinet meeting concluded.

In that same vein, at 2pm that afternoon, Police Minister Lisa Neville met with Emergency Management Commissioner Andrew Crisp and Graham Ashton and made the call that police would not be used for the hotel quarantine program, rather private security would be favoured. This all occurred prior to the announcement by the Prime Minister that hotel quarantine would be put in place, and prior to Daniel Andrews’ own press conference where he himself announced that private security would have a part to play. This is something that he continues to be in denial about when questioned on it, as was evident when Credlin brought it up today. It is clear Daniel Andrews knows far more than he is letting on.

Peta Credlin appears to have a strategy here. She is asking questions that will provoke a response from the Board of Inquiry. When she asked Andrews about the phone records on Friday, the Board requested them within two days. Today, she focused in on Andrews’ Chief of Staff. It would be unsurprising if his Chief of Staff is hauled before the Inquiry in the next few days. In addition to this, she raised an issue with the phone records, given that Telstra cannot provide encrypted messages. That falls under the Telecommunications Act, which is Commonwealth legislation. Credlin thereby asked the Premier if both he and his senior staff would provide their devices to the Inquiry, to ensure that these messages can also be retrieved. Andrews claimed he would provide what is necessary, so this may occur and is yet to be seen. Despite this, Andrews is likely teetering on the edge of a cliff right now, dangerously close to falling over the edge. He may find himself forced out of the leadership by his own Party very soon.

But Andrews is not the only Premier in the spotlight today. In news that is sure to surprise, it appears NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian may also be on her way out. Fronting the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) today on the matter of former Wagga Wagga MP Daryl Maguire, who resigned over corruption and was expelled from the Liberal Party, Berejiklian admitted to having a ‘close personal relationship’ with the former MP. In addition to phone taps that were played at the ICAC, this has impacted on the view of Berejiklian’s judgement. Despite her capable and measured response to COVID-19 in NSW, this link to a corrupt MP may just sink her political career. Talks are already reportedly underway as to replacing her, with Senior NSW Liberals being reported to have said her tenure as Premier is over. Names are already emerging as potentially replacements, including NSW Treasurer Dominic Perrottet, NSW Attorney General Mark Speakman, and the NSW Minister for Planning and Public Spaces Rob Stokes. Berejiklian appears defiant, with reports saying she does not plan on resigning and that she believes she can survive this politically, however, it seems unlikely. At best, she will remain until the next State election, where she will likely be replaced as Premier beforehand. It would be somewhat of a shame if she is sacked or has to resign, given she has been one of the only Premiers with common sense throughout this COVID-19 crisis. If she is to be replaced, her replacement must ensure that he/she will follow in her stead and oppose unnecessary and arbitrary lockdowns and restrictions.

It would seem apparent that Australia may be about to lose two Premiers in the same short period of time. In a year that has been completely absurd, it would be peak 2020 if Gladys Berejiklian and Daniel Andrews were both overthrown. Australia is no stranger to changes in leadership mid-term, so it would not be completely surprising. Essentially, if Gladys must go for this, Daniel Andrews must go for the 800+ deaths that have been caused by his utter lack of competence in his quest for ultimate power in Victoria.

They say lightning never strikes twice. It would appear that does not apply to politics.