TYB
GM Frens & SP
kek
GM-SP-FTW.png
>maybe moar cowbell
well heres the latter part of your request, cowbell..
you will have to look elsewhere for the blood part though!
https://www.outkick.com/sports/lebron-james-hires-lawyers-dumbest-reason-possible-continues-prove-hes-softest-man-alive
LeBron James Hires Lawyers For The Dumbest Reason Possible, Continues To Prove He's The Softest Man Alive
If you thought LeBron was soft before, wait till you hear this!
LeBron James is such a baby. God, this guy just continues to be the softest dude on the planet. What happened to him?
I remember when LeBron was the man. I'm talking wayyyyyyyyyyyy back in the day. Like, mid-2000s, when he was a young pup on the Cavs. That was the best version of LeBron. He was insufferable in Miami, and actually got a little more palatable when he went back to Cleveland. But ever since moving to LA?
My God. The worst.
Anyway, LeBron was apparently in his feelings this week over some ridiculous AI video making the internet rounds that shows him being … very pregnant.
That's right. Read it again. Soak it in. That's a real sentence. There's an AI video making the rounds of a very pregnant LeBron James, and LeBron is apparently so upset by it that his lawyers have sent the company responsible for the video a cease-and=desist letter.
What a baby.
Is LeBron James really this sensitive?
I mean, come on. What are we DOING here?! Is LeBron James really this much of a bitch? I mean, he is, but still … it's wild to see it actually unfold.
First off, that's a funny video. A disturbing one, for sure, but also funny. I assume AI will kill us all one day – perhaps soon – so we might as well laugh with the machines while we can.
Secondly … why even acknowledge the video in the first place? All you're doing is giving idiots like me a reason to write about it! Does LeBron think we're all going to think he's now pregnant? Is he worried about all the misleading info that's out there now? Does he think the world now believes that he had a baby with Steph Curry?
Like, what? What is he so upset about? It's AI! It's obviously AI – and I ain't talking about Allen Iverson. Wish I was, though. God, he was the best.
Anyway, LeBron James is soft as baby shit and he's insufferable. Not new information by any means, but worth noting regardless.
Happy Saturday!
https://x.com/nicksortor/status/1949142113129492972
🚨 JUST IN: Sen. Tom Cotton is attempting to pressure Kash Patel into hand over to him EVERYTHING the FBI knows about James Comey
NO! Tom Cotton is a deep state SNAKE!
The same snake who just filed legislation to GUT TULSI’S OFFICE after she exposed Obama.
He’ll merely forward everything Kash and Dan have uncovered to his deep state friends, including James Comey and John Brennan.
Cotton is NOT on our side.
ikr
https://notthebee.com/article/astronomer-hired-gwyneth-paltrow-to-manage-the-fallout-from-its-cheating-ceo-scandal-and-i-gotta-say-shes-doing-a-great-job/
Astronomer hired Coldplay singer's ex-wife Gwyneth Paltrow to manage the fallout from its cheating CEO scandal 😂
The cheating CEO scandal was, to say the least, a nuclear blast for tech company Astronomer — and the fallout has been nothing short of that, too.
So you gotta give the company full props for going into damage control mode — and sticking the landing pretty well!
Particularly poetic is the fact that Paltrow is the ex-wife of Coldplay lead singer Chris Martin, the guy who set this whole fiasco in motion.
I mean, with the CEO and HR person out, Astronomer could probably afford to give their socials guy a raise after this stroke of genius.
you've gotta give them props for this one.
https://hotair.com/david-strom/2025/07/26/breaking-french-prosecutor-rules-that-social-media-platform-x-is-an-organized-crime-group-n3805187
BREAKING: French Prosecutor Rules that Social Media Platform X Is an 'Organized Crime Group'
If you have any doubt that the European Union is devolving into a soft totalitarian state, think again.
I have been sounding the alarm bells about the developments in Europe for as long as I have been writing at Hot Air, and some of you may have thought me an alarmist engaged in hyperbole. I am alarmed, of course, but by real threats to freedom.
The latest assault on freedomnot just in Europe, because the EU and Great Britain are using their criminal and regulatory powers to suppress speech in the US as well as other countriescomes with the breaking news that the French authorities are classifying Elon Musk's X platform as an 'organized crime group' and is vigorously investigating the company (and presumably its management and owners) in a criminal case.
As part of a criminal investigation, an activist French prosecutor is requesting information on X’s proprietary algorithm and has classified X as an “organized crime group.” Democratic governments should allow all voices to be heard, not silence speech they dislike. The United… https://t.co/LN6sFAYSQh
— Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labor (DRL) (@StateDRL) July 25, 2025
I learned of this development from, of all places, the US State Department, which blasted France for its abuse of prosecutorial power to censor speech.
As part of a criminal investigation, an activist French prosecutor is requesting information on X’s proprietary algorithm and has classified X as an “organized crime group.” Democratic governments should allow all voices to be heard, not silence speech they dislike. The United States will defend the free speech of all Americans against acts of foreign censorship.
Apparently, this all began earlier in July, when the prosecutor opened an investigation at the request of a French MP. I hadn't seen much reporting about this, despite the fact that it should have been big news. But adding the designation "organized crime group" moves things up a notch or 10.
US officials issued a harsh condemnation Friday of France’s criminal investigation into the social network X, owned by billionaire Elon Musk, on suspicion of foreign interference.
“As part of a criminal investigation, an activist French prosecutor is requesting information on X’s proprietary algorithm and has classified X as an ‘organized crime group,’” the US State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor wrote on their X account.
“Democratic governments should allow all voices to be heard, not silence speech they dislike. The United States will defend the free speech of all Americans against acts of foreign censorship.”
Paris cybercrime prosecutors called for the police probe July 11 to investigate suspected crimes—including manipulating and extracting data from automated systems “as part of a criminal gang.”
The social media company last week denied the allegations, calling them “politically motivated.”
X also said it had refused to comply with the prosecutor’s request to access its recommendation algorithm and real-time data.
1
https://hotair.com/david-strom/2025/07/26/breaking-french-prosecutor-rules-that-social-media-platform-x-is-an-organized-crime-group-n3805187
The investigation follows two January complaints that alleged the X algorithm had been used for foreign interference in French politics.
One of the complaints came from Eric Bothorel, an MP from President Emmanuel Macron’s centrist party, who complained of “reduced diversity of voices and options” and Musk’s “personal interventions” in the platform’s management since he took it over.
X said it “categorically denies” all allegations and that the probe “is distorting French law in order to serve a political agenda and, ultimately, restrict free speech.”
The motivation is obvious: Elon Musk is playing in European politics, supporting conservative candidates, and the failing political leaders fearrightlythat they will lose power. Things are not going well in Europe, with a huge migration problem, sexual violence against women spiking, an increase in organized crime, and stagnant economies.
Also from the State Department:
We are deeply concerned by the findings in the House Judiciary Committee's interim report, led by Chairman
@Jim_Jordan
, exposing the EU's misuse of the Digital Services Act (DSA) as a tool for censorship. The report reveals how the DSA pressures tech companies to alter their global content moderation policies, effectively exporting EU standards to the US and beyond – threatening free speech worldwide. The classification of relatively benign political statements – such as “We need to take back our country” – as “illegal hate speech,” raises serious questions about the extent of its application. The DSA’s heavy hand targets humor, satire, and personal opinions on issues concerning immigration and the environment. The apparent one-sided enforcement of the DSA involves third parties like "trusted flaggers" and “fact checkers” with conflicts of interest and likely political biases, which can stifle discourse, democratic debate, and the exchange of diverse ideas across the globe. At X, we are committed to safeguarding freedom of expression, and resisting regulatory overreach that imposes censorship on platforms and our users. Read the report here:https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/2025-07/DSA_Report&Appendix%2807.25.25%29.pdf…
The EU has been trying to use its Digital Services Act to suppress speech both in Europe and the United States. As you may recall, Thierry Breton threatened Elon Musk with massive fines for hosting a conversation with Donald Trump during the campaign.
Defend X.Twitter. US condemns French inquiry into Musk's social media platform X
See: https://t.co/VKFsiSDQic
US officials condemned France’s criminal investigation into the social network X, owned by billionaire Elon Musk, after Paris cybercrime prosecutors said they were… pic.twitter.com/7qt2kpEDGi
— Arts, Politics & Culture (@rosewdc) July 26, 2025
In other words, the European Union was meddling in the US election using its regulatory apparatus. At the time, I called it a casus belli. Great Britain, you may recall, sent 100 Labour Party staffers to campaign for Kamala Harris.
I'm pretty certain that this goes far beyond anything the Democrats accused Russia of doing. They actually colludedand part of "they," in this case, was the Biden administration, which was collaborating with the EU to censor Americansto swing the election to Harris.
European governments are systematically undermining freedom in their own countries and elsewhere. We should, at minimum, sanction them.
2
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/jeff-charles/2025/07/26/supreme-court-to-take-up-ban-on-gun-ownership-for-marijuana-users-n2660954
Supreme Court to Take Up Ban on Gun Ownership for Marijuana Users
The Supreme Court will consider hearing a gun control case related to a federal ban on firearm possession by marijuana users.
The high court is reportedly expected to have a private discussion on whether it will take up the case of US v. Cooper on September 29. The law has been roundly criticized by gun rights advocates who argue that it is a violation of the Second Amendment.
The case centers on LaVance LeMarr Cooper, who was prosecuted for owning a firearm as a marijuana user, which made him a “prohibited person” under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), a federal criminal statute that bars certain people from owning firearms or ammunition.
This subsection targets those who unlawfully use controlled substances.
A police officer pulled Cooper over in Iowa during a traffic stop. They found a loaded Glock 20 in his vehicle. He did not have any felony convictions, but did have a misdemeanor conviction in 1996 for driving with a suspended license and marijuana possession.
Cooper later admitted to smoking marijuana on a regular basis — about three to four times per week. Prosecutors charged him with violating the federal statute. He waived his right to a jury trial and consented to a bench trial. This means he did not dispute that he owned a firearm while being a marijuana user.
The district court found him guilty on both counts and sentences him to over three years in prison for the offenses — even though he was not intoxicated at the time of the traffic stop.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in February vacated Cooper’s convicted and remanded the case. The panel rules that the lower court failed to properly apply the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in Cooper’s case.
The Bruen ruling mandates that all current and future gun control laws must be similar to restrictions enacted during the Founding Era.
The government argued that the court cannot excuse an individual who violates the statute, which applies to any drug user regardless of whether they pose an actual threat to public safety. The state further insisted that the statute aligns with historical traditions of disarming potentially dangerous people, such as “common drunkards” or those who are mentally ill and are dangerous.
1
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/jeff-charles/2025/07/26/supreme-court-to-take-up-ban-on-gun-ownership-for-marijuana-users-n2660954
The court rejected the notion that blanket bans on marijuana users are constitutional. Instead, it ruled that these cases should be taken on a case-by-case basis. “Keeping firearms out of the hands of drug users does not always violate the Second Amendment—but it can, depending on the individual,” the panel explained.
The “common drunkards” law was originally applied to militia members who were on duty. It did not apply to civilians. It addressed those found drunk “when under arms” during military exercises, guard duty, or other militia functions. Even in these cases, the individual was only disarmed and confined while they were actively intoxicated.
When the person sobered up, they were no longer confined, and they were allowed to have their guns.
The Fifth Circuit ruled in another case that sober, habitual marijuana users cannot be disarmed for past use and also acknowledged that the statute does not pass the Bruen test. Other courts in Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas have issued similar decisions.
The Justice Department is actively defending the statute despite the Bruen ruling and his currently battling legal challenges in multiple states. The agency argues that those who habitually use marijuana and other drugs pose a heightened risk to public safety. It insists that Bruen still allows the government to disarm people who are “dangerous or irresponsible,” applying this label to anyone who uses drugs.
I hope the Supreme Court does decide to take up this case. The federal statute barring gun ownership among marijuana users clearly does not pass the Bruen test. The vast majority of marijuana users are not committing gun crime — a reality that anti-gunners won’t acknowledge.
Barring these individuals from exercising their right to keep and bear arms is as irrational as banning firearms because some people use them to commit crimes. The truth is that the Second Amendment says this right “shall not be infringed.” It does not say “shall not be infringed unless you like to light up a joint every now and again.”
2
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/appeals-court-tosses-lawsuit-against-social-media-companies-over-2022-buffalo-shooting-5892781
Appeals Court Tosses Lawsuit Against Social Media Companies Over 2022 Buffalo Shooting
The plaintiffs aimed to hold the social media platforms liable for disseminating content that allegedly motivated the shooter to commit the attack.
A New York appellate court on July 25 dismissed a lawsuit filed against Meta, Google, and several other social media and Internet-based companies, in connection with the 2022 mass shooting at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York.
moar…
https://x.com/RealCandaceO/status/1948801391583023215
Groc apologises…
I accept your apology, Grok. 😂
We are barreling toward idiocracy and you are just playing your part.
Your programmers are banking on a future where no one will be able to read books so you won’t face any challenges when you assert something so absurdly untrue.
>https://x.com/TheJenniWren/status/1948863758446571936
https://ssstwitter.com produces this vid..
forgot the vid..
tru dat anon, tru dat!
https://joehoft.com/tina-peters-attorneys-file-motion-with-the-court/
Tina Peters’ Attorneys File Motion with the Court
Tina Peters’ attorneys filed a motion with the court on Friday.
After their court appearance earlier in the week, the attorneys representing Tina Peters filed a motion on Friday.
On July 22nd, a Habeas Corpus hearing was held in the Denver Federal Courthouse. US District Court Chief Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak presided to determine if Judge Matthew Barrett committed reversible error by sentencing Tina Peters to prison because he, in essence, deemed her speech to be a danger to society.
Here’s exactly what Judge Barrett said during Tina’s sentencing:
“You are no hero. You abused your position – and you’re a charlatan who used, and is still using your prior position to peddle a snake oil that’s been proven to be junk time and time again. Your lies are well-documented and these convictions are serious. I’m convinced you’d do it all over again if you could. You’re as defiant as a defendant as this court has ever seen.”
Sadly, Tina wasn’t even allowed to participate in Tuesday’s hearing of hers electronically, from where she continues to languish at the LaVista Prison in Pueblo, Colorado.
Tina’s Habeas claim of whether her Constitutional Right of Free Speech was severely violated is a Federal issue. The complication arose during the proceeding. In addition, is the question whether the case was heard and dispositioned sufficiently at the Colorado State Court level. Since Tina is alleging that Colorado violated her Constitutional rights to begin with, this Constitutional violation should supersede any further involvement with the Colorado Court, and enable it to be immediately heard in the Federal Court.
That was the intent of the July 22nd hearing, led by Tina’s Attorney Peter Ticktin. Here’s a glimpse of Attorney Ticktin being interviewed by CBS upon conclusion of the proceedings:
While the Judge could have simply thrown out the case with the same malice and forethought demonstrated at all phases of Tina’s persecution and prosecution thus far, he instead fairly asked that Tina’s team refile their paperwork (by July 25th) to only address this First Amendment Habeas issue.
The original submission included 4 other areas of concern that at this juncture only serve to unnecessarily distract from the glaring issue of Habeas. If this Habeas is resolved, it will be the rising tide to lift all the other areas of concern. However, unless a miracle occurs, Tina must continue to suffer through at least 5 more unjust weeks of prison time. Sadly we’re soon approaching the one year mark that Tina has been incarcerated.
On Friday, Peters’ legal team filed their submission.
Here is the second page of the filing listing Tina’s attorneys.
Biden’s DOJ and FBI were all over this case. It’s time to move this case to the federal courts where it always belonged.
please pray for Tina Peters