We explore real-life reformation here in this informed, online community.
The Supreme Court will be answering this question before long in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh and Gonzalez v. Google LLC –
Background summary by the guys at Not the Bee:
Three decades ago, lawmakers protected internet companies by passing Section 230, a provision that exempts them from liability if someone says or does something illegal on their site. The argument is that a website like Facebook is not a publisher that condones or controls what is being written on the site; therefore, it should not be liable for lawsuits. But as we've seen from exposés like The Twitter Files, these websites ARE acting like publishers by choosing what content is allowed based on their ideological preferences. If Facebook bans sites like ours for posting stories that refer to men in wigs as men, then the argument goes that they should be liable to all the legal bindings of a formal publisher. If Section 230 is repealed, it would drastically change free speech on the internet... but not in all good ways...
They cannot do what they want in the nation or to the nations of the world. They are limited by written Constitutional restrictions.
“Absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people.”
-- John Jay, The Federalist No. 4
He was Director of the Counterterrorism Center.
In his resignation letter to the President, he explains why he cannot be a party to an illegal war.
"Early in this administration, high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments to encourage a war with Iran. This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States, and that should you strike now, there was a clear path to a swift victory. This was a lie and is the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war that cost our nation the lives of thousands of our best men and women. We cannot make this mistake again.
"As a veteran who deployed to combat 11 times and as a Gold Star husband who lost my beloved wife Shannon in a war manufactured by Israel, I cannot support sending the next generation off to fight and die in...
"The erosion of fatherhood and their role as spiritual leaders disrupts the transmission of faith. Western [Christian] civilization is sustained not by markets or constitutions, but by moral and spiritual inheritance handed down within families.
"The path forward is clear: we must stop neutralizing male vocation and once again preach sacrifice, duty, and spiritual headship without embarrassment. That requires rejecting the narrative that fathers are incidental to this journey and that their natural authority is a threat rather than a gift. If we internalize that story, we should not be surprised when faith, family, and inheritance continue to fracture."
-- Daisy Inglese
