We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Samizdata quote of the day – Missouri vs. Biden

So far I’ve only really discussed the procedural happenings—however what limited expedited discovery in this case has exposed (separate and apart from the Twitter files) is both unprecedented and abhorrent. The most widespread and troubling discovery? CISA has designated YOUR THOUGHTS part of the governments infrastructure. They call it “cognitive infrastructure”.

They argue they can regulate what you think as they consider it under their purview. In this article I describe “The 6 Most Shocking Recent Revelations of Government Censorship,” if you want the details. One character of particular importance was White House director of digital communications and strategy Rob Flaherty. Flaherty was ABUSIVE to social media companies—like they were his battered wife. Many of them resisted the calls for censorship until threats forced them into action. I was actually stunned to see how averse they were to censoring—until forced to by the government.

Tracy Beanz. Read the whole thing, it is astonishing.

27 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – Missouri vs. Biden

  • Clovis Sangrail

    Would that I were astonished.
    Disgusted and dismayed, but not even surprised.

    I just wish the potential for this level of openness existed in the UK.

  • Paul Marks.

    As Clovis says – sadly this is not astonishing or even surprising, it is par-for-the-course.

    Both the government bureaucracy and the corporate bureaucracy are rotten to the core.

    And if, by some miracle, an honest and competent person gets to a position of power and tries to fight the corruption – it is they who are destroyed.

    The example of Attorney General Paxton of Texas comes to mind. Attorney General Paxton managed, by almost superhuman efforts, to keep the election fraud of mass (and really uncheckable) mail-in-ballots out of Texas – but recently his power to prosecute election fraud has been taken away, taken away by corrupt judges.

    And Attorney General Paxton has recently been investigating the corruption of major corporations – corruption that has led to many deaths. In response he has been impeached – on utterly fake charges, by the corrupt House in Texas.

    The corrupt judges were “Republicans” – just as many of the corrupt House members were “Republicans”.

    Just as the corrupt county officials who rigged the Arizona Governor election in 2022 were “Republicans”.

    So it is not just Democrats such as Mr Joseph Biden (swine though he has always been) – many “Republicans” are bought-and-paid-for as well.

    The United States of America may not be dead – but it is clearly dying.

  • As Clovis says – sadly this is not astonishing or even surprising, it is par-for-the-course.

    Then you have both missed the point. What is astonishing is not what the government did, I would expect no less from such shits, it is that the courts did not roll over and actually ruled against the government.

  • bobby b

    “What is astonishing is not what the government did, I would expect no less for such shits, it is that the courts did not roll over and actually ruled against the government.”

    Say a word of thanks for people such as Judge Doughty. In the past two years, he also blocked President Biden’s nationwide COVID-19 vaccine mandate for health care workers and lifted Biden’s ban on new federal leases for oil and gas drilling.

    The scariest point in all of this is that so much of the possible rescue of the US lies in the hands of a very very few such stalwarts. (The appellate court that denied the gov’s appeal only remanded the case back to that judge – sort of saying “uh uh, we’re not touching this one.” Doughty remains the hero here.) Our processes are corrupt, and they’re held back only by a small number of fingers in dikes.

  • Paul Marks.

    Perry – good point.

  • Lee Moore

    What is astonishing is not what the government did, I would expect no less for such shits, it is that the courts did not roll over and actually ruled against the government.

    It’s not that astonishing when you focus on the “provenance” of the judges. As Ms Beanz points out, the whole point of the attempted switcheroo to the Eastern District of Virginia was to try to get out from under a Trump appointed judge in Louisiana. Judicial attitudes are rather predictable from their provenance – ie who appointed them. (Less so for older judges – ie Clinton judges are not quite so reliable la lutta continua types as Obama and Biden appointees. And the GOP is at least ten years behind the Dems in catching on, so Bush II judges are way less conservative on average than Clinton judges are lefty, and Trump judges are way more judicial on average than Obama judges.)

    It is true that Trump judicial appointments were somewhat patchy – some excellent judges – ie honest and non flinching as the Louisiana guy seems to be, a sprinkling of right wing warriors (mirror images of the bulk of Obama and Biden appointees) and some pets and proteges of Republican Senators, ie execrable squishes of the type who have actively joined in the DC courts outrageous persecution of peaceful protestors at the Capitol on Jan 6 2021.

    But Doughty in Louisiana doesn’t seem to be cowed by the Brahmin DC swamp lawyers sent down to the actual Louisiana swanps by Ms Psaki and the DoJ. And neither is the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals which has a 12-4 GOP-appointed majority, and probably a clear majority of proper old fashioned read the text conservative style judges.

    I have not been able to track down the exact provenance of the magstrate judge in Eastern Virginia. He’s black and operates in Alexandria, so is presumably a Democrat. But he was originally appointed in 2008. I believe it is the local federal district court which selects its magistrate judges, and in 2008 the federal district court would not have been packed with steaming commies.

    The US Senate’s system for processing appoitments to the federal dstrict courts includes an informal requirement for approval, or at least not oppostion by the US Senators for the state. And up until 2008, there had been a steady stream of fairly middle of the road Democrat and Republican Senators for a long while. Hence one would expect fairly sane district judges and so fairly sane magistrate judges selected by them. Hence Judge Davis, though probably a Democrat, is probably sane. If the case had gone to an actual current ED of Virginia Federal District Judge, then the odds of getting an Obama/Biden commie harpy would have been very high, and so Ms Psaki would obviousy have won. And if the plaintiffs had appealed, it would have gone to the 4th Circuit – the most reliabley left wing Appeal Court in the country.

    Know your judge, is the rule in the US. And file your case accordingly. In this case the defendant – in reality the Biden administration acting under colour of Ms Psaki – has tried the relatively unusual tactic of trying to get a switcheroo to a more favorable district. And been unlucky enough to get an honest judge in Virginia.

  • Lee Moore

    Glancing at the list of federal district judges in the Eastern District of Virginia, I see that there are 11 judges, 6 of whom are Obama or Biden appointees, one Clinton appointee and 4 GOP appointees. But since Ms Psaki’s case was filed in the Alexandria Division, then it would be impossible for her to be unlucky enough to draw a GOP appointed federal district judge, because there aren’t any – all three federal district judges in the Alexandria diviion are Dem appointees.

    But of these 11 judges only 2 were serving in 2008. If you look at the list of “senior” judges in the ED of Virginia – ie officially retired but still hearing a reduced workload of cases, you see that there are 8 GOP appointees and 2 Dems. These are the judges who would have selected Judge Davis.

    So there has been a complete turnaround of this district in the past 15 years – from a solidly GOP appointed moderate bench, to one with a clear majority of committed lefties. Judge Davis is one of the last vestiges of the ancien regime.

  • Clovis Sangrail

    @Perry you are right. I marvelled at the judicial decisions but did not comment on that.
    Could they happen in the UK? Probably, but only because we have a notionally Conservative government.

  • Paul Marks.

    Clovis – such things as election rigging do, perhaps, happen in the United Kingdom in some local areas, such as Tower Hamlets, (or when the “wrong person”, such as Nigel Farage, might win a byelection) but it is NOT necessary to rig elections in the United Kingdom generally – as the major parties are not likely to challenge much of the international agenda, whether on Covid lockdowns, “gun control”, the cultural agenda (“Pride Month” and so on), and digital currency. “Not likely to” does not mean it is impossible that the Conservative party will oppose some part of the international agenda – but we should not raise our hopes too high.

    As for censorship – there is no First Amendment in the United Kingdom, so the British bureaucracy do NOT have to engage in underhand tactics to push censorship of “Hate Speech”, i.e. dissent against some part of the international agenda, – as they can do so openly, the police can arrest you and you can be prosecuted for such “Hate Speech” dissent. Although some sections of the “Deep State”, the Administrative State, (hello 77th Brigade) engage in psyops anyway, even though there is no need for them to do so, largely to justify their own existence – their jobs.

  • Paul Marks.

    It is unlikely that any major members of the “Deep State”, Administrative State, of the Federal Government of the United States will be punished for their crimes.

    The most senior people in the FBI, CIA, and so on, have committed crimes (such as lying, on oath, to Congress) – but they will not be punished, as their crimes were committed in support of the Public/Private Partnership – the Corporate State.

    Or “Stakeholder Capitalism” as the ideas of Mussolini and others are now called by people including Dr Schwab, see his 1971 book “Stakeholder Capitalism” and his more recent book “The Great Reset”. I must stress that Dr Schwab thinks this tyranny is GOOD, he is not against it, and so is not a “conspiracy theorist” as only opponents of such things as Agenda 2030 United Nations Sustainable Development goals are “conspiracy theorists. If one supports these ideas they are real – if one opposes these ideas they one is an “insane conspiracy theorist” as the ideas only exist if one supports them, they are “fiction” (“conspiracy theory”) as soon as anyone tries to oppose them.

    As for just men in senior positions – and a few such people do exist.

    Some people have asked me why the Corporations and the Security bureaucracy have not just had Attorney General Paxton of Texas killed (perhaps in some “accident”, or “health event”).

    If they had him killed that would draw more (not less) attention to his investigations – far better to discredit him by impeaching him for “corruption”.

    Discredit the man – and you discredit the investigations (into election fraud – and into the poisoning of people by the pharma corporations, poisoning that has resulted in so many deaths).

    From their own point of view, what the Deep State is doing (including the “Republican” part of it) is a sensible tactic.

    One can be horrified by the evil, the gut churning wickedness, of the establishment (and not just in the United States – internationally), whilst still admiring their intelligence.

  • Paul Marks.

    In short – is is really not “Missouri versus Biden”.

    It is “Missouri versus the Corporate State ideas of Mussolini and Henri Saint-Simon” which is what such things as ESG (environment and social governance- via the Credit Money banking system and corporations) really are.

  • JohnK


    I agree with you. The notion that Joe Biden has ever had any sort of rational political philosophy is risible.

  • Paul Marks.


    Mr Joseph Biden has indeed never had a rational political philosophy – the beliefs of the international establishment in general are irrational.

    But they do have a “political philosophy” – and one that Mr Biden (as far as he can – in his senile state) agrees with.

    According to this political philosophy, everything should be under government and corporate control – in partnership. And ordinary people should live off “free stuff” – which will be given to them (to us) as long as they (we) do not dissent too much against the political and cultural agenda of the international establishment.

    The political philosophy of the international establishment (the “international community”) can be summed up in one word – liberticide.

  • Paul Marks.

    In past years Mr Biden claimed to be a theologian – and he was not just lying.

    There was an aspect of Church teaching that Mr Biden was interested in – the economic (not cultural) “Social Teaching” (which modernist Protestants called the “Social Gospel” for it hit Catholics and Protestants alike).

    For example, the Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII (a very learned man) in 1891 makes the following claims – that capitalism has led to greater poverty, that capitalism has led to moral decay, and that state intervention (not yet state control – in 1891 it was still about limited state intervention) would make things better than they otherwise would be.

    The problem, the vast problem, is that these claims were-and-are not true.

    There was not more poverty in 1891 than in previous centuries – there was less poverty (not more).

    Not is it true that 1891 was a time of greater immorality than in previous centuries – if anything the opposite is true (consider slavery, and religious persecution – which existed in those previous centuries, and torture, and death for fairly minor crimes, and …).

    Nor was it true that state intervention would make things better than they otherwise would be – on the contrary, state intervention would make things worse than they otherwise would be.

    So this economic (not cultural) “Social Teaching” (or “Social Gospel” if one is talking about the Protestant rather than Catholic version of it) which was the only aspect of theology that the young Joseph Biden was interested in, is WRONG.

    It is wrong – flat wrong. And it is harmful – not helpful.

  • JohnK


    I sincerely do not think Joe Biden has ever had any sort of political philosophy. No man who plagiarises a speech by Neil Kinnock can be described as a political thinker. His sole purpose in life seems to have been to amass as much money for himself and his family as possible, and in this aim he has been very successful.

    As to taking political or economic advice from popes, I’d rather not. The current one seems to be a communist.

  • Fraser Orr

    @bobby b
    Our processes are corrupt, and they’re held back only by a small number of fingers in dikes.

    But with a significantly larger number digging holes in that selfsame dike with their judicial activism, I’m not sure the dike has much structural integrity. And as our political system is more an more consumed by the left, then it won’t take them too long to flush out those annoying little “but the constitution says…” judges.

    I think it is interesting to look at the USSC. For sure there are some excellent justices on there. Surely there we find Trump’s greatest legacy. But some of the liberal justices are really quite scary bad. Sotomayor and Kagan are terrible justices. Sotomayor apparently doesn’t understand the difference between “de jure”, which she pronounced without the final e, and “de facto.” And Kagan doesn’t seem to have been a regular judge, but just someone who moved up through the administrative hierarchy, she is the very essence of a swamp creature. In fairness Jackson seems a very decent, if very liberal justice. Any lawyer who defends Guantanamo bay terrorists gets a lot of admiration from me. And of course Roberts himself seems often more concerned about the politics of the court than in doing actual, constitutional justice. However, I’m not a lawyer, so that is just a layman’s look.

    However, the pressure to pack the court seems inexorable, and given the way the political system is racing left, I’m afraid that taking a backhoe to the dike doesn’t seem very far off.

  • bobby b

    “I sincerely do not think Joe Biden has ever had any sort of political philosophy.”

    He has always had a mercantile philosophy. He has always been for sale to the highest bidder. He has adjusted his politics to fit whatever his largest donors wish him to be at the time.

  • Steven R

    Like it matters what the courts rule. We’re in a post-Constitutional America now and the government just ignores the courts. Look at the gun control laws NY and NJ just enacted and that is post Miller, Heller, McDonald, and Bruen. Even if the courts take up those cases it could take decades to go through the system and even if the state is told no, they just pass a new law and it starts over from square one.

  • Fraser Orr

    @Steven R
    Like it matters what the courts rule. We’re in a post-Constitutional America now and the government just ignores the courts.

    I don’t think that is true at all. If it were then we would see far less political passion around appointments, especially appointments to the USSC. In fact I think almost the opposite is true. As congress becomes more an more dysfunctional then the only way to enact change is by bypassing it entirely. This is why the role of both the executive order and the courts are so much more important than that have been in the past. One need only look at some of the federal court TROs and other actions that had nation wide implications under Trump or the brouhaha over Roe vs Wade. It is a lot easier to convince one man of your policy than eighty million voters.

  • bobby b


    “But some of the liberal justices are really quite scary bad. Sotomayor and Kagan are terrible justices.”

    Sotomayor is, by USSC standards, an ideological moron. Kagan, though, has some substance. Scalia liked her, and that counts for a lot for me. She’s made some surprising decisions in her time.

    Roberts is another Biden, serving himself. Biden seeks money, while Roberts seeks a legacy.

  • Paul Marks.

    JohnK – Mr Biden was always corrupt, but he did have beliefs. Sadly those beliefs were wrong.

    As for Pope Francis – he is, strictly speaking, NOT a Marxist (he differs from them in some philosophical aspects) – but his political and economic ideas are wrong, wildly wrong.

    This is not surprising as, by his account, the only works on political economy that Francis has ever read are Marxist, or Marxist influenced, works.

    This is typical for a Jesuit – they read Marxist works (originally to OPPOSE them), but they do not read free market works – they just do not.

    If you asked Pope Francis “what is your opinion of the work of Ludwig Von Mises?” – you would not get a hate filled response from Francis (certainly not) – what you would get is a blank look. He has almost certainly never heard of Ludwig Von Mises or any other free market thinker.

    Neither would most of the other Jesuits – and other political church people, Protestant as well as Catholic.

    They insist on making policy speeches (pretending they are theology sermons) – without doing the work to understand political economy.

    It is the sin of PRIDE (too much “self esteem” without any justification for it) – in this case they just assume they know everything (without really studying) and then they tell everyone what to do – with the implication that you are a morally bad person if you do not follow the policies they tell you to follow.

    Archbishop Welby, and so many others, are much the same.

    And they twist-the-knife – by going on about how humble they are (which are sincerely humble man never does).

  • Lee Moore

    She’s made some surprising decisions in her time.

    Kagan is a smart swamp creature. She is willing to trade her vote when she’s losing, in return for a watered down Roberts muddle that doesn’t set a dangerous (ie anti-lefty) precedent. She is happy to play Roberts’ political game of trying to dodge difficult questions, because she’s in the minority, and the alternative to trying to negotiate a clear loss down to a loss that sets no precedent, is simply taking the clear loss.

    So don’t be fooled by the “surprising” decisions. They’re trades. If she gets into a lefty majority there’ll be nothing surprising from her any more.

  • Fraser Orr

    @bobby b
    Sotomayor is, by USSC standards, an ideological moron.

    Something I often think about when it comes to these “diversity hires” is what a shocking insult they are to the community they supposedly represent. I’m not a lawyer, but my guess is there are many, many, many talented Latino and Latina judges out there doing great work. But this is the best they can come up with? And for people from minority communities who bust their butts and make it on their own, how frustrating it must be to have the miasma of “diversity hire” everywhere they turn, discounting their commitment, energy and drive just because of their skin color or sex.

    Or to put it another way, there are few things more x-phobic or x-ist (for some value of x) to cloak an individual person only in their intersectional category and discount their individual effort and achievements.

  • Steven R

    Yeah, but it wasn’t pandering in her case because she’s a “wise Latina” and knows it and wasn’t afraid to tell the world.

  • bobby b

    FO: “But this is the best they can come up with?”

    They already came up with the best. Miguel Estrada would have been a fantastic appellate-level judge. Of course, he refused to consider himself to be a victim due to his race, and so the Dems filibustered him out.

    You have to be the correct minority race, AND you have to be ashamed of it, in order to qualify for Democrat approval. A secure intelligent Hispanic? No deal.

  • bobby b

    “Kagan is a smart swamp creature.”

    No argument here. She is, at heart, a progressive, and her work will always reflect that. I would love to have nine Scalia’s sitting there.

    But at the same time, she knows how to negotiate, and she knows when to back down and make trades. Our USSC faces dangers that are heightened when one faction or another – either one – has complete control. It’s a stronger historical institution when its members know how to compromise. I’d rather see a Kagan than a Sotomayor in that spot.

    (Roberts wants to play that role, but doesn’t know how. Kagan, I think, does.)

  • Paul Marks.

    I would like a Supreme Court made up of Justices who upheld the Constitution of the United States – including sound money (the basic point of writing the Constitution was to PREVENT a return to the fiat “not worth a Continental” money) and the sanctity of contracts – public and private (which is what the Constitution says).

    However, it was made clear as far back as 1935 (the two gold clause cases) that the Supreme Court values the interests of the banks and the government above that of the Constitution and the people.

    Nor is the Supreme Court interested in upholding honest elections – as to do so would deeply upset the Administrative State (the so called “Deep State”) and allied Corporations, who now insist that elections must be rigged, if (otherwise) the “wrong” candidate would win the election.